Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

2016 Postmortem

Showing Original Post only (View all)
 

pipoman

(16,038 posts)
Fri Oct 9, 2015, 09:36 AM Oct 2015

Why Lie When The Truth Is Better? The Background Check Lie. [View all]

Once again in the wake of a multiple victim tragedy politicians are clamoring to introduce a bill requiring "universal background checks". We once again have presidential candidates standing on high stating they will heroically pass universal background checks.

Just so we all understand, UBC used to be "gun show loophole"...how many times have you heard a politician promise to "close the gun show loophole"? Both terms define the only exemption in the Brady law requiring background checks on all firearms purchases. The only sales exempted from the National Instant Check System (NICS ) are sales between two people who live in the same state and the seller is not in the business of selling firearms. This exemption has always been a part of the federal mandate for firearms background checks.

Why? Why would this one very specific type of sale be exempted? The NRA?

Well, I suppose the NRA, but only to the extent that they can state they will challenge a UBC bill/law. They have likely been threatening they would challenge since the early 1990's when the federal background check was being written. Any threat of action has to be credible..in fact probable..or it can't sustain, the bluff will be called. In the absence of the NRA someone would atill challenge on the same grounds and it would still be overturned.

So why were private sales exempted? The one and only reason is because if the "commerce clause" which states,

Intrastate, or domestic, commerce is trade that occurs solely within the geographic borders of one state. As it does not move across state lines, intrastate commerce is subject to the exclusive control of the state.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Commerce+Clause

This is very simple. There will be no UBC mandate at the federal level...it cannot happen now for exactly the same reason it was originally exempted, and for the same reason ubc bills don't make it out of committee...because it would be overturned pretty quickly.

Why do politicians not simply tell the truth and look for solutions which are actually possible? Does Hillary and Bernie really not get this? Do they really think this will happen? I say they are posturing and pretending for the outraged and it allows them to strike the gun lobby of the Republican party.

Now I said the truth is better than the lie. By honestly stating that UBC must be a state imposed restriction and promising to fund and enable NICS for private sales the first step toward getting UBCs would be complete. As it is Colorado may have to suspend or repeal their requirement because there is no statutory access to NICS, and Colorado doesn't have a system in place of their own.

I believe nobody wants UBCs (except the public who actually try to believe their politicians)..especially big gun control who have used "gun show loophole" and "ubc" as a fund raising tool since their earliest days and cant financially survive after solving the issue...just a theory...

Bottom line is that if you want UBCs you should be working on your state. And....don't let your politicians play you. I would like to ask our candidates why they refuse to tell the truth about this....until they do it will be more of the same..nothing, private sales will remain exempted and we will have another 20 years of the same.

20 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
There are some court cases that dispute your interpretation... Human101948 Oct 2015 #1
Frank is in the business of selling fireworks pipoman Oct 2015 #2
Study a bit harder... Human101948 Oct 2015 #3
Unless you can answer the question your made up scenario is just that pipoman Oct 2015 #4
I did not make up that scenario...the law journal did... Human101948 Oct 2015 #5
Did you answer the question? pipoman Oct 2015 #6
I guess I must be suffering from early onset dementia... Human101948 Oct 2015 #10
Thats what I thought.. pipoman Oct 2015 #19
One of the most preposterous NRA arguments around. DanTex Oct 2015 #7
I'll ask you the same question... pipoman Oct 2015 #8
Because of the GOP and the gun lobby. DanTex Oct 2015 #9
Apples and oranges pipoman Oct 2015 #11
Umm, both are restrictions on interstate commerce, in fact NFA is far more restrictive. DanTex Oct 2015 #12
Again, like 60% of Republicans want private sale checks.. pipoman Oct 2015 #15
But not the ones in congress. Therein lies the problem. DanTex Oct 2015 #16
I might have bought that 15 years ago.. pipoman Oct 2015 #17
It's not a question of "buying" it, there was recently a vote on UBCs, and the GOP DanTex Oct 2015 #18
What rights do they claim apply to private sales which doesn't apply to buying from a gun store? pipoman Oct 2015 #20
Sorry but the "commerce clause" has been rendered meaningless by various Supreme Court decisions. PoliticAverse Oct 2015 #13
Gonzales only demonstrates that state law doesn't trump federal law... pipoman Oct 2015 #14
Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Why Lie When The Truth Is...»Reply #0