The problem gun reformers face

[ProSense]

The Morning Plum: The problem gun reformers face

Posted by Greg Sargent

Congress is in recess next week. Which means political observers will be closely watching what sort of backlash, if any, Senators face at home in the wake of their No vote on the Toomey-Manchin compromise on expanded background checks — particularly since new signs are emerging that the gun debate isn’t over.

Along these lines, Quinnipiac has released a remarkably detailed set of poll numbers out of Pennsylvania that tell us a good deal about the strengths and weaknesses of the chances for further action. It finds that 70 percent of Pennsylvania voters are either dissatisfied or angry over the Senate’s rejection of the background check compromise. That includes a majority (52 percent) of Republicans.

Pennsylvania is an interesting test case with broader implications. While it does lean blue, it has a deep gun culture, and it is home to the sort of suburban district — represented by Republicans — where gun reformers still hope to pick up unexpected GOP support.

Indeed, one notable finding is that Pat Toomey’s approval rating is now at 53 percent among suburban voters — in a state where the Philadelphia suburbs are key to statewide races. Hopefully other Republicans who represent rapidly suburbanizing states (such as Kelly Ayotte) or suburban House districts will take note. Overall, fifty four percent in Pennsylvania — and 56 percent of suburbanites — view Toomey more favorably because of his stewardship of the bill. And 61 percent of women — a demographic the GOP needs to improve among – view him more favorably.

- more -

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2013/04/26/the-morning-plum-the-problem-gun-reformers-face/

[pipoman]

1. The bottom line is that

the federal universal background requirement would have been challenged, it would have lost on constitutional grounds, and the political fallout on Dems from reddish states could likely have cost the senate dems the majority status in 14, only to have the law struck down anyway..It wasn't worth the risk or the political capital..IMHO..

[ProSense]

2. No, that's not the "bottom line"

"the federal universal background requirement would have been challenged, it would have lost on constitutional grounds, and the political fallout on Dems from reddish states could likely have cost the senate dems the majority status in 14, only to have the law struck down anyway..It wasn't worth the risk or the political capital..IMHO.."

First, the bill was filibustered, meaning it got the majority of votes. Secondly, Senators in red states also voted for it. Thirdly, the problem cited in the article is that some people wouldn't hold their members of Congress accountable for voting against the bill (I should have included that snip). Finally, the bill is popular among the public.

The problem for members of Congress opposed to the bill is that their approval plummet.

Pro-Background Check GOP Senator Achieves Record Approval Rating, Gun Safety Opponent Takes A Bath
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/04/26/1925701/pro-background-check-gop-senator-achieves-record-approval-rating-gun-safety-opponent-takes-a-bath/

[DanTex]

3. Another false NRA talking point. They just keep flowing...

Actually, I'm wrong. Not even the NRA is dumb enough to suggest that universal background checks are unconstitutional. This is a talking point from further right than the NRA.

[pipoman]

4. "talking point" "talking point"

blah, blah, talking point...

Maybe look into why private intrastate background checks were exempted in 1994, and every single time a bill has come up since..hint..it has nothing to do with 'talking points'..

[DanTex]

5. Maybe look into why nobody with a clue about constitutional law has even hinted that

it might be unconstitutional.

[Alva Goldbook]

9. Dan, are you not aware of the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution?

When guns are sold without a background check, it is a private person who owns a used gun selling it to another person in their own state. Interstate commerce does not apply. Therefore, Congress, in theory, has no authority to regulate such sales. It could be done on the state level, but not on the federal level.

[DanTex]

17. Are you not aware of the NFA, which requires intra-state sales between private citizens to be

reported and verified by the Federal Government.

Here's the thing. Today's GOP thinks that everything is unconstitutional, from the Civil Rights act to the Federal Reserve, to Obamacare, to Social Security. And yet, to my knowledge, not even Rand Paul has tried to argue that universal background checks would violate the constitution. That tells you something about how ludicrous this whole argument is.

Again, find me some credible constitutional scholar who agrees with this interpretation of the commerce clause. You may not know this, but the commerce clause has been interpreted very broadly, and there is ample evidence that private sales of guns affect interstate commerce.

[billh58]

23. Would you quit scaring

the NRA apologists? They're having a hard enough time dealing with a wave of public opinion turning against them, and now you attack them with common sense and facts.

You are a cruel, uncaring, anti-gunner Democrat. Shame on you...

(if necessary)

[Alva Goldbook]

41. Dan, intra-state sales between private citizens already gets a background check.

In order for me to send a gun that I own across state lines, I have to sent it to an FFL. That's not the case when selling it to someone in my own state.

Can you find me any credible constitutional scholar? I don't keep a rolodex of constitutional scholars on hand, and I don't know of anyone else who does either. Do you?

I'm well aware that the interstate commerce clause is interpreted very broadly. And conservatives tend to be pretty retarded when it comes to the Constitution. But just reading the Constitution, I simply don't see how interstate commerce would apply if a private person sells a gun to another private person. What if we were talking about any other thing, like say a TV? Would you say that Congress has the authority to regulate yard sales?

[DanTex]

44. Intra-state means within the same state.

NFA governs private intrastate sales (within the same state).

If the Federal Government can show that private intrastate sales affect interstate commerce, then they can regulate them. And it is very clear that they do. A lot of guns are trafficked illegally between states, and private sales facilitate this trafficking because they make it easier for criminals to get hold of guns in the first place. There have even been studies that show that states with weaker gun laws provide a greater share of the illegal guns trafficked to other states. It is a very definite interstate concern.

[Alva Goldbook]

49. What provision of the NFA governs sales within the same state?

Dan, my apologies, I got mixed up with "inter" and "intra". But I am unaware of any provision under federal law that governs a private person selling a gun to another private person. And I've read just about every gun law on the federal books, as well on the state level where I live.

If you're aware of where this is under the US Code, I'd wish you'd inform me of it. Here's a link to get you started.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/part-I/chapter-44

[DanTex]

56. If you sell an NFA gun to someone within the same state, you need to transfer the registration.

And you need to pay a fee. So that's an example of federal regulation of a private intrastate transfer.

Do you disagree?

[Alva Goldbook]

60. Dan, I'll ask again.

Where is this listed under the United States Code? Here's a complete list of federal gun laws.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/part-I/chapter-44

I would note that under Virginia state law, "machine guns" (i.e. full auto assault rifles) are highly regulated, but it's done so under state law.

http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+18.2-295

[DanTex]

64. So are you saying I'm wrong? That's a serious question.

I've never sold an NFA gun, so maybe my understanding is actually wrong. I don't think I'm wrong, but I don't feel like digging through US legal code. This shouldn't be that difficult a question to settle.

Just tell me if you're disputing the fact that NFA guns require a fee and a registration transfer with the Federal Government, even if it is a private, in-state sale.

If you're disputing that, then maybe someone else on this board has transferred an NFA gun in-state and can tell us what the process is.

[Alva Goldbook]

73. Dan, all I'm asking you to do is prove your claim.

If the NFA establishes what you claim it does, then it should be in the US Code. It shouldn't be too hard to find with the link I sent you.

[DanTex]

74. I'm not sure what you are trying to argue here.

Why don't you just come out and state clearly what you think NFA does with regard to in-state transfers? I'm really not into playing games.

If you honestly think NFA exempts in-state transfers, just say so. But I'm not going to go digging through US code just to satisfy your curiosity. I've discussed NFA with a lot of people, and you are the first person who has ever suggested that it doesn't apply to in-state transfers. Again, you might be right, but I'm pretty sure you are wrong.

So how about you go digging through the legal code to find the part of NFA that exempt in-state transfers?

[Hoyt]

53. Ain't it tough splainin to folks who can't get their "nomenclature" correct.

I bet Alva is one of those gunnys that raises heck if someone calls a magazine a clip, yet he's just spouting right wing constitutional BS when he can't even get the terms correct.

I bet even Scalia would have a hard time ruling against background checks for what is essentially gun traffiking in a back alley between folks supposedly a resident of the same state.

[Alva Goldbook]

55. Hoyt, I dont' actually know the difference between a magazine and a clip.

As far as I can tell, both words mean the same thing. I'm not a right winger. Republicans believe in 1 of the 10 amendments in the Bill of Rights. Dems tend to believe in 9 of them. I'm just a progressive who believes in all 10.

[Hoyt]

68. Guns are far from "progressive."

[Alva Goldbook]

71. You don't think that the right of self-defense is a progressive value?

Hoyt, a gun allows a 5'2 100 pound woman to protect herself from a 6'5 250 pound body builder, by doing nothing more than wiggling her index finger. A gun creates an equality of force between two people. Yes, I believe that is a progressive value.

[DanTex]

72. The right of self-defense and the right to own a gun are different things.

The right to live in a society that's not riddled with gun violence is more important than the right to own a gun.

On the whole, the safety benefits of guns are far less than the harms.

[Alva Goldbook]

75. I don't recall seeing a Constitutional Amendment that guarantees you to be free from gun violence.

But there is a 2nd amendment.

"On the whole, the safety benefits of guns are far less than the harms."

If that's true, then why do cops carry guns? The Justice Dept. found that there are 1.5 million self-defense uses of guns every year. There are 12,000 firearm homicides. By my count 1.5 million is a whole lot more than 12,000.

[DanTex]

76. The constitution also doesn't say anything about self-defense either.

The question we are discussing is whether "gun rights" are a progressive value or not.

Also, the justice department did not find that there are 1.5 million self-defense uses of guns. Here's the study you are referring to. You probably want to read it before just tossing out random statistics.

http://home.uchicago.edu/~ludwigj/papers/JQC-CookLudwig-DefensiveGunUses-1998.pdf

You are trying to equate "defensive gun uses" with "lives saved by guns" which is preposterous. Most so-called "defensive gun uses" are actually arguments that escalate into violence where "the other guy started it". Thing George Zimmerman. By all hard measures of the benefits versus harms of guns, the harms are greater by an order of magnitude. The 30,000 gun deaths per year are actual dead bodies. On the other hand, there is no evidence at all that owning a gun, or carrying a gun, or trying to use to defend from a crime has any statistical safety benefit at all.

[Hoyt]

80. Are you a 100 pound woman? Typical gun cultist BS.

[Alva Goldbook]

81. Instead of insulting me, why don't you address the point I raised?

This is very simple. A gun creates an equality of force between two people. The law even recognizes it. It's called Disparity of Force.

Or are you really telling me, that you'd prefer this woman be dead?

Or perhaps you'd prefer this 12 year old girl was dead?

Maybe you'd prefer this sweet old lady was dead?

Or maybe you wish this cute girl was dead?

Or perhaps you wish this old man bound to a wheelchair was dead?

Or maybe you wish this 15 year old boy was dead?

Allowing the weak to protect themselves from the strong is a progressive value. For the very same reason why protecting the poor from the rich and the powerful is a progressive value.

[Hoyt]

87. I could put a bunch of photos of shot kids, give us a break and stop promoting more guns.

[pipoman]

54. And the weapons restricted under NFA

are the ONLY weapons restricted by the NFA...not shotguns with barrels over 18", not hand guns, not semi-autos, etc. Only short barreled shotguns, fully automatics, and various other very, very specific weapons which have been determined not to be "in common use for lawful purposes". If you are suggesting all guns should be restricted by NFA, that is another story...they aren't now. So you see the NFA has absolutely not a single thing to do with guns "in common use for lawful purposes".

If the Federal Government can show that private intrastate sales affect interstate commerce, then they can regulate them.

True, but to date they have not done that...and far from a slam dunk defense for a challenge to a federal law restricting private intrastate sales..it may prevail, it may not...

[DanTex]

58. Whether guns are in common use or not has nothing to do with commerce clause or states' rights.

That might be relevant to constitutionality with regard to the second amendment, but that's a different issue. However, since some states have gun registries and/or universal background checks, then it is pretty difficult to argue that either of those are unconstitutional on 2A grounds.

True, but to date they have not done that...and far from a slam dunk defense for a challenge to a federal law restricting private intrastate sales..it may prevail, it may not...

They haven't done that because they haven't tried to, because this has never come up before the courts, because there is no such law in effect. But the evidence is there -- there are studies about this. Illegally trafficked guns show up far away from their original state all the time, and states with tighter gun laws, including UBC and registries, are the source of less illegal guns than states with loose laws.

Like I said, if there were any plausible constitutional question about UBC, then someone in the GOP/NRA would have been making noise about it in the last few months.

[pipoman]

61. It has everything to do with NFA registry...

intrastate private sale BG checks are not unconstitutional at the state level.

It hasn't made it out of the Senate Judicary Committee before this year because it is the job of that committee to determine constitutionality of bills. There have been several bills requiring BG checks on private intrastate sales...none have come out of committee until this year, and this year only because of public pressure.

[DanTex]

65. The "NFA Registry" is not part of the constitution.

There are two constitutional questions.
1) Can the Federal Government govern private in-state transactions (states' rights/commerce clause).
2) Is it constitutional to require guns to be registered (second amendment).

The answer to question 1 is yes, due to the NFA, and also the obvious fact that private in-state transactions contribute to interstate gun trafficking.
The answer to question 2 is also yes, due to the fact that some states require guns to be registered, and states are bound by the second amendment.

[Alva Goldbook]

78. Dan, so basically what you're saying is that because the Fed regulates machines guns one way...

...it can regulated guns not covered by title II of the NFA. That's a pretty specious argument, don't you think?

You're saying that private sales can be regulated because they might be involved in gun trafficking. Well, that line of reasoning, someone who attends church might blow up a women's clinic. Does that mean that the gov't can regulate church attendance?

The only state that I'm aware of that requires guns to be registered is New York, and that's a new law that has yet to make it's way through the courts. I think the 4th amendment is pretty clear on this:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

[DanTex]

79. Constitutionally, yes.

No, it's not specious at all. It's simple consistency. Either the Feds can regulate in-state transfers or they can't. The rate of fire of the weapon doesn't affect the commerce clause or the states' rights question.

Also it's not because private sales might affect gun trafficking. It's because they do affect gun trafficking. Oh, and the first amendment prevents the government from regulating church attendance.

At the very least, Hawaii and Washington DC require guns to be registered also.

Finally, what does the 4th amendment have to do with a gun registry? Are you, like blindly throwing darts at a dartboard? How about the 15th amendment? Or the 3rd amendment? Hey, this is fun!

[Alva Goldbook]

82. Dan, let's get real here.

Are you really telling me that since machine guns, which are not protected by the 2nd amendment under the Miller decision, can be registered, that it also applies to a 9mm pistol, which is protected by the 2nd amendment?

Are you suggesting that all private sales of guns are used in gun trafficking?

Yes, the gov't can't regulate church attendance. Thus, why the words, "Congress shall make no law" is used in the 1st amendment. It's also why the words, "shall not be infringed" are used in the 2nd.

what does the 4th amendment have to do with a gun registry?

Guns are property, are they not? Does a gun registry allow the gov't to know what you own? Let's review the 4th amendment again:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

[DanTex]

83. You are confusing the commerce clause and the second amendment.

Up until now, you were claiming that a federal gun registry would violate the commerce clause, not the second amendment. As far as the commerce clause, NFA proves that the federal government is within its rights to regulate private in-state transfers.

Now you're changing your story and claiming it violates the second amendment. This is also false, because registering guns does not prevent people from owning them. Also, there are plenty of examples of gun registries at the state and local level, like Hawaii and DC, and since states are bound by 2A also, then obviously these prove that gun registries are not a violation of 2A. So, while NFA is not second amendment precedent for an overall gun registry, such precedent exists in these other laws. Remember, even your buddy Scalia has conceded that there are limits on 2A.

Are you suggesting that all private sales of guns are used in gun trafficking?

I'm saying that private gun sales have a substantial effect on gun trafficking, which is enough to justify regulation at the federal level.

Guns are property, are they not? Does a gun registry allow the gov't to know what you own? Let's review the 4th amendment again:

Yeah, the fourth amendment says you can't be searched without probably cause. That has absolutely nothing to do with a registry. Registries don't involve searches and seizures. Again, since NFA is a registry, if the 4th amendment prevented registries, then NFA would be unconstitutional.

[Alva Goldbook]

84. No, I didn't!

Up until now, you were claiming that a federal gun registry would violate the commerce clause

No I didn't! I said a federal gun registry violates the 4th amendment. I said that Congress making a law regulating private sales would violate the commerce clause.

As far as the commerce clause, NFA proves that the federal government is within its rights to regulate private in-state transfers.

You have yet to prove that the NFA regulates any private in state transfers. Furthermore, you have yet to demonstrate how the NFA would apply to arms not covered by the NFA.

Now you're changing your story and claiming it violates the second amendment. This is also false, because registering guns does not prevent people from owning them.

No, I said it violates the 4th amendment.

since states are bound by 2A also, then obviously these prove that gun registries are not a violation of 2A.

No, it just means the Supreme Court has not ruled on this yet. I'll remind you that D.C. used gun registries to ban the ownership of guns by everyone, and the Heller decision overturned that.

Remember, even your buddy Scalia has conceded that there are limits on 2A.

Scalia is not my buddy, but he made it clear what the limits on the 2nd amendment are. Long standing prohibitions against "unusual or dangerous" weapons can be regulated, like sawed off shot guns and full auto rifles. Long standing prohibitions against allowing guns in gov't buildings and airports is okay. But that was about it. Read the Heller decision!

I'm saying that private gun sales have a substantial effect on gun trafficking, which is enough to justify regulation at the federal level.

What percentage of private gun sales do you think are used in gun trafficking?

Yeah, the fourth amendment says you can't be searched without probably cause. That has absolutely nothing to do with a registry.

Does a registry allow gov't to know what property you own?

Again, since NFA is a registry, if the 4th amendment prevented registries, then NFA would be unconstitutional.

You have yet to demonstrate that the NFA is a registry. And even if it did, why would a registry that applies to the NFA apply to guns not covered by the NFA?

This is all mute, since the federal registration of guns not covered by the NFA is already illegal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_Owners_Protection_Act#Registry_prohibition

[DanTex]

85. OK, I think this is where I hop off the crazy train.

Look, if you're going to insist that NFA isn't a registry, then there's not much point in trying to have an intelligent discussion.

[Alva Goldbook]

90. No, all I'm asking is that you prove your claim.

Show me some evidence of it. I will be more than willing to accept it if you can demonstrate that it does what you claim it is doing.

[pipoman]

88. The ONLY reason that the NFA

passed Constitutional scrutney is because those weapons registered under NFA are not "in common use for lawful purposes"...that is the ONLY weapons in NFA...So no, to 1. As for 2, at the state level many things are possible, including private sale bg checks..not at the Federal level.

[DanTex]

47. About the constitutional scholar thing.

Here's the point. You may have noticed that nobody brought up any constitutional objections to universal background checks, not even the NRA or anyone in the GOP.

And this is not because the NRA is shy about saying crazy stupid things. Nor is it because the GOP is shy about calling things unconstitutional. You have to think that if there were any question at all about the constitutionality of the bill, then there would have been hordes of Republicans on TV talking about how this was a violation of states' rights. Like you had with, say, Obamacare.

But you didn't.

[pipoman]

57. So then why didn't it happen praytell?

There is no huge lobbying budget for neighbors selling a shotgun between them. Why isn't this done? Why wasn't it done in 1994 and why hasn't a single bill made it out of the senate judiciary committee over the last 20 years when bills went to a Democratic Senate?

[DanTex]

59. Umm, because there weren't enough votes in the senate.

Because the GOP are a bunch of right-wing nutcases, who think that universal background checks are the first step along a slippery slope to Stalinism.

[pipoman]

62. How do we explain the several Democrats who didn't vote for it?

[DanTex]

67. They are right-wing Dems like Max Baucus.

[Eleanors38]

6. Now, let's be specific: NRAtalkingPoint™ No. 20358

The ACLU objected to the expanded b.g. Check as proposed earlier this month. The organization believed that as written, the longer time (when compared with the current law) data was stored in NICS could be misused by government agencies. ACLU opposition does not bode well for the constitutionality of any legislation. The b.g. Proposal was hastily drawn up, and quite possibly written in a manner so as to sneak in a future registry scheme.

So maybe it's ACLUtalkingPoint™ No. 00001.

[DanTex]

7. In other words, nobody with a clue has any doubts about the constitutionality.

By the way, even establishing a national gun registry is obviously not unconstitutional, seeing as how there already is one. I figured you would know this, being so dedicated to the gun rights cause.

[Eleanors38]

8. So the ACLU has gone over to the Dark Side?

What registry do you speak of?

[DanTex]

13. The ACLU didn't say it was unconstitutional.

I'm still waiting for a single opinion of a constitutional scholar claiming universal background checks are unconstitutional. I mean, there must be some right-wing nutjob with a law degree somewhere that believes some of this stuff, right? It's not purely the realm of uneducated internet trolls.

[Alva Goldbook]

10. Dan, a national gun registry is prohibited by law.

It's been in effect for many years now. And yes, a national registry would be unconstitutional, under the 4th amendment. All Americans have a right to be secure in their property unless we're served with a warrant.

[DanTex]

12. Wow, you guys don't even know about NFA! Fascinating!

[Alva Goldbook]

43. Yes, I am aware of it...

...but they only regulate "unusual" weapons, as defined in the Miller case. This is why rifle barrels have to be of a certain length. Common every day weapons, like say a 9mm pistol are exempt from the Title II definitions.

[DanTex]

45. That wouldn't affect the commerce clause or the Federal Government's jurisdiction.

If the Federal Government, as you say, can't regulate intrastate transactions between private citizens, then it wouldn't matter whether the gun being sold is "usual" or not.

[Alva Goldbook]

51. No, it would.

The Miller decision found that "unusual or dangerous" weapons could be regulated by the federal government. As in outright outlawed. The gun in question in the Miller decision was a sawed off shotgun. This was referenced in the Heller decision as well, and found that guns that are in common usage, were regulated differently under the law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Miller

[DanTex]

52. Miller was a second amendment case. The "unusualness" matters to the second amendment,

but not to the commerce clause or states' rights issue.

[former9thward]

11. Where is this registry?

Something else made up?

[DanTex]

14. LOL. So not only do you not know what a "Harvard Study" is, you also don't know about the NFA.

Whenever I think I've figured out just how clueless gun fanatics are, someone comes along and finds a new bottom...

[premium]

15. I thought the NFA was a registry for certain firearms, like machine guns,

not a national registry for all firearms.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act

The National Firearms Act (NFA), 72nd Congress, Sess. 2, ch. 757, 48 Stat. 1236, enacted on June 26, 1934, currently codified as amended as I.R.C. ch. 53, is an Act of Congress in the United States that, in general, imposes a statutory excise tax on the manufacture and transfer of certain firearms and mandates the registration of those firearms. The Act was passed shortly after the repeal of Prohibition. The NFA is also referred to as Title II of the Federal firearms laws. The Gun Control Act of 1968 ("GCA&quot is Title I.

Am I wrong?

[DanTex]

16. I didn't say "all firearms". But the NFA is most definitely a national gun registry.

If you own a machine gun and you want to sell it to your buddy down the street, you need to report that sale to the Federal Government. Even though it's an intra-state transaction between two private citizens.

Just pointing out that there are no constitutional problems with national gun registries or background check requirements. There is ample precedent. Sure, politically, a national registry covering all guns, or even all semi-automatic guns, or all handguns, is not feasible at this time, but that has nothing to do with the constitution.

[premium]

18. Thanks for the reply.

I think that's where the confusion came in about a national registry, I think people thought you were saying that there was a national registry for all firearms.

[DanTex]

21. Of course, not of all firearms.

The point is that NFA provides constitutional precedent for the Federal Government to regulate intrastate transactions of guns. This is one of the reasons that you don't hear anyone credible trying to argue that universal background checks would be unconstitutional.

[premium]

22. I tend to agree with you,

the Commerce Clause has been broadly interpreted and, IMHO, it would survive a court challenge.
My attitude is, pass it and let the chips fall where they may.

[DanTex]

25. You never know what Scalia and Co are going to do, but

striking down UBC would represent a drastic change to the way that the commerce clause has historically been interpreted, and on top of that SCOTUS would be overturning a law that 90% of Americans agree with.

Obamacare was on shakier ground constitutionally than this, by a long shot, and even there Roberts decided not to interfere. And given that nobody, even on the right, has even brought up this constitutionality issue, I don't even know if it would make it to the Supreme Court.

[hack89]

39. Except there is no way to register existing guns using the NFA model

due to 5th amendment issues the law was changed in 1968 such that gun owners cannot register their guns. Manufacturers and importers are required to register the guns. When a person buys a registered gun then that transfer is recorded. So the NFA is not useful precedence if you wish to register existing guns.

From US v. Freed:

Under the present Act[3] only possessors who lawfully 604*604 make, manufacture, or import firearms can and must register them; the transferee[buyer] does not and cannot register.

Once initially registered, the weapon is transferred and the name of the owner is changed in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13714404009198646374&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr

[umt9]

35. NFA 1934

The "certain firearms" referred to in the act are full automatic weapons (machine guns, submachine guns, and true assault weapons (AK47 & M16 for example) and short barreled (under 16&quot rifles and shotguns. The registry created is a tax registry to track the $2,000 transfer fee paid each time such a weapon is sold. The law also covers switchblade and spring knives as well as all explosive devices. Despite its long history and very tight administrative controls, the act has never prevented criminals from obtaining such weapons. The infamous Ruby Ridge debacle was started by the, illegal, transfer of a shotgun with a barrel .25" shorter than minimum.

[premium]

42. Thanks.

Good info.

[uppityperson]

46. Has it never ever prevented 1 criminal? Poor logic. Since one is able to get an illegal weapon....

does not mean it have never prevented someone else from doing to.

There will never be total protection from crime, no matter what. But to turn that around to say no crime was ever prevented is really poor logic.

[umt9]

92. Re-read my post

I never said that the act hasn't prevented a criminal from acquiring such weapons nor that it never prevented a crime. I said that it has never prevented criminals from acquiring (or making) such weapons. Believe it or not criminals don't obey laws and are seldom deterred by them.

[former9thward]

19. LOL.

Yet another bs post by you. The NFA only applies to a tiny percentage of firearms and firearm owners. It is meant for owners of fully automatic machine guns, 'sawed off' shotguns, grenades and similar devices. 99.9% of gun owners have nothing to do with the NFA and they are not part of any gun registry. Fail at your try to mislead people.

[DanTex]

20. The percentages don't affect the constitutionality question.

Either the government can regulate intrastate transactions between private citizens, or it can't. Are you even paying attention to this discussion, or just trying to "score some points" to make up for the "Harvard Study" debacle?

[former9thward]

30. I am still waiting for you to disprove one fact presented in that study.

Just one. I suspect I will be collecting SS benefits before that happens. BTW the NFA survives constitutionally because a federal license is needed for those weapons. No federal license need for normal weapons so it would be unconstitutional but keep up your desperation.

[DanTex]

31. Amazing, you're still standing by it! Even after it was shown to you that it is right-wing

propaganda, and not published in a science journal, and that the actual Harvard studies (studies performed by Harvard professors, and published in peer reviewed journals) come to the opposite conclusion. I guess this is the face of desperation.

Anyway, hate to burst your bubble, you're not the first NRA mouthpiece to trot out that little piece of pseudoscience. There are plenty of problems with it, including false pieces of data. I keep this link handy to educate each new generation of gun trolls...

Enjoy!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=45085

[former9thward]

32. Wow a typo!

Which of course invalidates the entire study! And you anti-rights people wonder why you never get anywhere. Because after all you say you have 90% of the people on your side! Just a few crazy gun nuts on the other.

[DanTex]

33. LOL. Using false data is not a "typo".

Let's review. You cite a non-peer reviewed "study" by non-scientists, using false data, and even after you know the people are right-wing ideologues with no credentials, the "study" is just a propaganda piece that doesn't even attempt to do any statistical testing, and the data that the study is based on is false -- you're still defending it.

Perfection!

[upaloopa]

26. That dog don't hunt any more.

You should give up on the idea gunners have so much power our political future hinges on having their support.
I have said over and over gunners are their own worse enemy. The push for gun legislation won't go away this time. There is no CT effect. The call for more gun control is a hard dog to keep under the porch.
Sooner or layer there will be another tragic shooting, it is inevitable. Could it have been prevented by the new bill? Maybe not the next one but people will remember who stood against background checks. I only hope it isn't little children that get murdered next time.
Your days in the sun are dwindling. Pretty soon people won't give a dog about what you have to say. I honestly expect some more liberal Supreme Court will overturn the Roberts court's legislating from the bench on gun laws.

[pipoman]

63. It only takes one person to challenge and you can bet on that person being out there somewhere..

[upaloopa]

77. It also takes money and a court willing to hear it

[pipoman]

89. The money will be there through lobbying groups like NRA

[Progressive dog]

66. No it isn't

What political capital? When you support something that a big majority of voters want, you gain political capital.

[librechik]

24. thye unsolvable problem actually is : we already have 200 million guns

and they don't disappear just by wishing or legislating against new ownership. We already have far too many guns than any country ought to have, and that's not going to change.

[billh58]

28. Your last few words

Last edited Fri Apr 26, 2013, 04:21 PM - Edit history (1)

"and that's not going to change" invites the question: by when? Will it change tomorrow, or next month, or even next year? Probably not, but how about the next decade, or the one after that?

The NRA and its apologists would have you and me believe that the Second Amendment enumerates the absolute right to the unfettered proliferation and hoarding of as many guns as Americans want, with absolutely no oversight or regulation.

The NRA and its apologists would have you and me believe that only they are qualified to interpret the Constitution, and that their reading is the only one that matters. They can do this because they have purchased the votes of those politicians who are paid to agree with them.

The NRA and its apologists would have you and me believe that more guns are the solution to the gun violence problem in this nation, and that only a good guy with a gun can stop a bad guy with a gun. They can make these assertions because they have purchased the silence of those politicians who should be representing the majority of their constituents.

The NRA and its apologists want you and me to believe that we can never change the gun culture in this country because it's the "American Way." I, along with many millions of Americans, maintain that they are wrong just as the rest of their right-wing policies are wrong. The true American Way, is the way of right vs. wrong, truth vs. lies, and of fairness vs. bullying.

The NRA and its right-wing supporters CAN be defeated morally, AND politically. Support Gabby and Mark Giffords, the Brady Group, MAIG, and other organizations who are fighting to restore sanity to the out-of-control proliferation of lethal weaponry in this country.

[Zoeisright]

69. Yep.

This stupid hand wringing and "it's never going to change" whining is unAmerican and incredibly ignorant. Change, big change, is possible.

[rrneck]

27. From the article...

Now for the bad news for gun reformers. Fifty nine percent say they could vote for a candidate who disagrees with them on guns. Only 19 percent have contacted a public official on the issue; only 15 percent have given money to an organization involved in it. All of this again suggests — as Republicans have calculated — that this isn’t a motivating issue.

[DanTex]

29. So the GOP is counting on the ignorance of the American people.

From your link:

One key reason: Many people simply don’t know that criminals, severely mentally ill people and other high risk groups — like violent misdemeanants and people under a domestic violence restraining order — can get a gun without undergoing a check.

Looks like they may have overestimated how stupid Americans actually are, though. Kelly Ayotte is getting hammered in the polls. Hopefully the Dems can run enough ads ahead of 2014 to make sure every voter knows that criminals can buy guns without background checks, and that the GOP is to blame.

[former9thward]

34. Nothing but falsehoods.

People who have been judged "severely mentally ill" can not get a gun without a law being broken. Criminals (felons) can't get a gun without a law being broken. The background check bill in the Senate would not stop a person who had a restraining order from getting a gun. I don't know your definition of a "violent misdemeanants" but if you mean misdemeanors the Senate bill would not stop them either.

[DanTex]

36. Uh huh. "There's no loophole". Where have we heard that talking point before?

Although, since you are apparently comfortable with drawing conclusions from data that you know to be false, pretty much nothing you can say at this point is going to be much of a surprise.

[former9thward]

37. Why did you post falsehoods?

Attempting to mislead people? It must frustrate you to know that people can reply to your posts and point out BS. I notice you did not respond to any of them.

[DanTex]

38. I think everyone outside the NRA bubble understands that you are the one posting falsehoods.

In the end, if you honestly don't believe that there are any loopholes in the background check laws, then best of luck to you and your delusions.

Here's a friendly top: once you admit that you don't care whether a study uses false data as long as it comes to the conclusion you want, it's going to be pretty hard to dig yourself out...

[former9thward]

40. a "friendly top"?

I don't want to get that friendly. Of course there are loopholes in the background checks. But none of the examples you cited would be cured by the Senate bill that voted on. Of course you knew that.

[pipoman]

91. "Loophole"

: a means of escape; especially : an ambiguity or omission in the text through which the intent of a statute, contract, or obligation may be evaded

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/loophole

The 1994 law requiring background checks..

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-103hr1025rh/pdf/BILLS-103hr1025rh.pdf

Is not ambiguous about not requiring checks on private, intrastate transfers between 2 people who are not in the business of selling firearms who live in the same state..no ambiguity..

It was not an omission resulting in an avenue for evasion of the law...Private sales are quite intentionally exempted.

It isn't a loophole. There was a reason private sales were exempted. There is a reason other bills have never made it out of the Senate Judiciary Committee. There is a reason it failed when it came to a vote.

This whole discussion could be over and the issue fixed by now..or in ten years if it started now enabling the system for private sales, then going state to state enacting a requirement. A lot of states would enact if it didn't cost them the expense of building their own system..

[rrneck]

48. Yes.

I'm guessing even most gun owners have only bought a gun at a sporting goods store and are actually ignorant of the issue. That also means that they are ignorant of the ramifications of any legislation intended to solve the issue. The more people know, the less support there will be for universal background checks. Of course, that's assuming people care enough to even consider the thing.

Every time something bad happens with a gun people have two choices: work to make the guns go away or go and get a gun to defend themselves from the same thing happening to them. Most people, being human, will opt for self preservation if somebody can't guarantee they will do it for them.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

50. Maybe their problem is the outright contempt that they have for millions of Democrats and

Independents that own firearms.

Can they ever push for reform without calling firearm owners "gun nuts" or something equally stupid and fact-free? Can they ever push for reform without calling all expressed opposing views as "NRA talking points"? Can they ever push for reform without overreaching?

[billh58]

70. Speaking of NRA propaganda

here is a prime example. The "millions of Democrats and Independents" that you speak of are NOT represented by the NRA, nor you Gungeoneers, and they know who the "gun nuts" really are as well as the rest of us. Many millions of them agree with cleaning up the insane laws which allow the unfettered proliferation of guns in this country.

The NRA-promoted fallacy that ALL gun owners march in lockstep is just one of the many lies being promoted by the apologists and "cold dead hands" gun huggers. True "gun nuts" are in the very vocal minority of American gun owners, and are fast becoming the laughing stock of mainstream Americans from BOTH political Parties.

[rustydog]

86. The problem they face: Goobers

who can't think for themselves