Friend refused on background for a nice 36-1

[OLDSTER]

Background checks are unconstitutional. They presume that you're "guilty" until you prove your "innocence." Little things can trip you up on background checks, including misdemeanor crimes and poor record-keeping by half-witted flunkies in Washington, D.C.

(*sigh*) I miss America. If you see her, tell her to come home.


------

Just curious; where is it that we can look for a statute or law on the books that states background checks are unconstitutional. Can it be proven ? If so, I'd like to be able to quote it if I'm ever turned down.

 

[Muss Muggins]

The Supreme Court, in Printz v. U.S., felt otherwise, thus background checks for firearms purchases are constitutional. Printz held that state and local law enforcement officials could not be compelled to run the background checks, but they were free to do so if they so chose. Hence the checkerboard of state background check requirements for private party sales.

Background checks are unconstitutional. They presume that you're "guilty" until you prove your "innocence." Little things can trip you up on background checks, including misdemeanor crimes and poor record-keeping by half-witted flunkies in Washington, D.C.

(*sigh*) I miss America. If you see her, tell her to come home.


------

 

[7tenz]

I was in a gunstore bsing with a clerk and he had to take a phone call. Went along like "Uhuh, yes, blah blah blah ok blah blah.." etc and hung up. "CA DOJ. Got another denial. This guy is a ***** PD cop with a domestic problem." Was a hunting rifle.

 

[American1776]

It's interesting to see so many folks on these boards defending a system that requires supposedly free citizens to first ask for, and receive, permission from the government before they can own and carry a firearm whose purpose is for defending against tyrannical government.

"If it pleases the crown, could the crown please investigate my background so I can receive the honor from the crown to own a firearm?"

 

[Waldo]

It's interesting to see so many folks on these boards defending a system that requires supposedly free citizens to first ask for, and receive, permission from the government before they can own and carry a firearm whose purpose is for defending against tyrannical government.

"If it pleases the crown, could the crown please investigate my background so I can receive the honor from the crown to own a firearm?"

Be careful using the term "free citizen" I found out that it upsets some people here.

 

[Watchdog]

It's interesting to see so many folks on these boards defending a system that requires supposedly free citizens to first ask for, and receive, permission from the government before they can own and carry a firearm whose purpose is for defending against tyrannical government.

We're no longer living in the 18th Century. It isn't the 1700s any more. I'll go out on a limb here and say that most people these days aren't buying a firearm to defend themselves against a so-called "tyrannical government". Except for the extremists, of course, who view everything "the government" does as an infringement on one right or another.

Oh, and "supposedly free citizens"? Are you referring to us? You know, American citizens? Tell you what. If you don't believe you're free, hop on a plane and head for communist China or North Korea. Or even Russia, where they're supposedly a bit more enlightened. When you get there, start talking in public about "tyrannical governments" and complaining about your lack of freedom there. If you somehow manage to live through the first twenty-four hours, you'll be begging to get back to the good ol' United States of America...the true land of the free.

 

[American1776]

We're no longer living in the 18th Century. It isn't the 1700s any more. I'll go out on a limb here and say that most people these days aren't buying a firearm to defend themselves against a so-called "tyrannical government". Except for the extremists, of course, who view everything "the government" does as an infringement on one right or another.

Oh, and "supposedly free citizens"? Are you referring to us? You know, American citizens? Tell you what. If you don't believe you're free, hop on a plane and head for communist China or North Korea. Or even Russia, where they're supposedly a bit more enlightened. When you get there, start talking in public about "tyrannical governments" and complaining about your lack of freedom there. If you somehow manage to live through the first twenty-four hours, you'll be begging to get back to the good ol' United States of America...the true land of the free.

Your first argument (This isn't the 18th century anymore, and anyone who dare quote John Locke's Second Treatise on Government, esp. chapter 19, is just an extremist like that McVeigh fellow); This isn't a new argument, and we hear it all the time from folks who would love to undo 2A.

Your second argument boils down to: 'China and North Korea are horrible tyrannies, therefore, you should be thankful that the US isn't as bad, so kiss the boots of the American government because at least you're not as oppressed as those slaves.' That's a non-starter.

 

[BC38]

Your first argument (This isn't the 18th century anymore, and anyone who dare quote John Locke's Second Treatise on Government, esp. chapter 19, is just an extremist like that McVeigh fellow); This isn't a new argument, and we hear it all the time from folks who would love to undo 2A.

Your second argument boils down to: 'China and North Korea are horrible tyrannies, therefore, you should be thankful that the US isn't as bad, so kiss the boots of the American government because at least you're not as oppressed as those slaves.' That's a non-starter.

Kinda reminds me of the "PSA" I've been seeing where John Cenna says, "loving America means loving ALL Americans"...

Ummm, no, John, it doesn't.

The fact that I don't "love" those that would undermine and destroy all the things about America that I hold dear, does NOT mean that I don't love America - quite the opposite in fact.

EDIT: After a little more thought I have concluded I can love even those Americans who want to tear down America. I just don't LIKE them and I don't love what they stand for. But I can still have compassion and love for them because I believe their misguided views are due to the fact that they have been deceived and even duped in terms of what America is, what she stands for, and what she should be.

 

[Absalom]

It's interesting to see so many folks on these boards defending a system that requires supposedly free citizens to first ask for, and receive, permission from the government before they can own and carry a firearm whose purpose is for defending against tyrannical government.

"If it pleases the crown, could the crown please investigate my background so I can receive the honor from the crown to own a firearm?"

If you view the government like this, you're missing the point of the Revolution and the work of the Founding Fathers.

The Constitution consists of a lot more than the 2nd Amendment, most essentially those Articles that established a republic with a system of government, a process for the people to elect their representatives, and a way for those representatives to make laws.

And while this system has had and still has lots of problems, it has survived about 250 years and nobody worldwide seems to have come up with something better, and as Watchdog pointed out, plenty came up with something much worse.

I'm not defending the background check system as such. But at the moment, majorities seem to support and have passed laws to that effect. You can still arm yourself against your theoretically tyrannical government, but a perfectly constitutional law requires a background check. If you don't like the law, you can work politically to convince a majority to change it. But if you can't or don't want to do that, you either follow the law or go elsewhere.

 

[American1776]

If you view the government like this, you're missing the point of the Revolution and the work of the Founding Fathers.

The Constitution consists of a lot more than the 2nd Amendment, most essentially those Articles that established a republic with a system of government, a process for the people to elect their representatives, and a way for those representatives to make laws.

And while this system has had and still has lots of problems, it has survived about 250 years and nobody worldwide seems to have come up with something better, and as Watchdog pointed out, plenty came up with something much worse.

I'm not defending the background check system as such. But at the moment, majorities seem to support and have passed laws to that effect. You can still arm yourself against your theoretically tyrannical government, but a perfectly constitutional law requires a background check. If you don't like the law, you can work politically to convince a majority to change it. But if you can't or don't want to do that, you either follow the law or go elsewhere.

The genesis of the Constitution goes even beyond what you stated above. The Natural Rights and Social Contact theories from which our Constitution derives (most notably John Locke's Second Treatise on Civil Government, Ch. VIII, IX, and especially XIX) provide a picture of government so different from what we have today, that it's surprising that someone could claim that it has survived to today.