Republican-led US states sue to block expanded gun background checks

[RF667799]

You are assuming they know he is already a criminal. Yes if it is stop and frisk. Or open carried. Or concealed but not announced to a police officer.

That's the point. It only creates an additional crime, where there was none before. A crime that a person prohibited from having a firearm can't be prosecuted for anyway.

 

[craig]

That's the point. It only creates an additional crime, where there was none before. A crime that a person prohibited from having a firearm can't be prosecuted for anyway.

That is exactly why gun owners need to be licensed so that the police will have this power. Register the gun owners not the guns. If someone has possession of a gun is not a gun owner then he is committing a crime. Just like driving without a license. Just like carrying without a concealed permit.

 

[RF667799]

That is exactly why gun owners need to be licensed so that the police will have this power. Register the gun owners not the guns. If someone has possession of a gun is not a gun owner then he is committing a crime. Just like driving without a license. Just like carrying without a concealed permit.

Yes, manufacturing a crime where there was none before. And you've not been able to give a good reason for that, other than to be able to arrest this new class of criminals you've created.

 

[JMB1911A1]

That is exactly why gun owners need to be licensed so that the police will have this power. Register the gun owners not the guns. If someone has possession of a gun is not a gun owner then he is committing a crime. Just like driving without a license. Just like carrying without a concealed permit.

Look up IL FOID cards and then explain why you think it will work nationwide.

After all, it has worked so well in Chicago, right?

 

[craig]

Look up IL FOID cards and then explain why you think it will work nationwide.

After all, it has worked so well in Chicago, right?

Early days with some successes but definitely many early adopter mistakes. Registering the animator and not the inanimate object makes sense logically. Perhaps Congress will commission a study on how this kind of law would have impacted past gun violence.

 

[Mungo Jerry]

The same way it makes arresting someone driving a car easier because he cannot show he has a drivers license.

Did you choose to miss the point or do yo not remember what you said?

 

[rahl]

Eugene Stoner would respectfully take issue with your picking of nits.

I don’t care. The AR is not and has never been a military weapon. No military on the planet does or has ever used one.

 

[rahl]

We have done it in Colorado for some years now it works fine.

No it doesn’t. It’s not possible to enforce.

 

[rahl]

But if all gun sales required background checks the criminals would not get guns. That is what we are shooting for. Attacking the black market in guns is impossible when background checks are optional. It is an invitation to criminal behavior for profit and the market is booming.

It’s not possible to enforce universal background checks.

 

[rahl]

That is exactly why gun owners need to be licensed so that the police will have this power. Register the gun owners not the guns. If someone has possession of a gun is not a gun owner then he is committing a crime. Just like driving without a license. Just like carrying without a concealed permit.

The constitution doesn’t allow you to register gun owners.

 

[jaeger19]

You are assuming they know he is already a criminal. Yes if it is stop and frisk. Or open carried. Or concealed but not announced to a police officer.

Okay..stop and frisk and tgey find a firearm

They run his license and find he is a felon.
Done.

I mean how do they know his registration status??? By looking at him? Lol

 

[Arby]

If you want to make a difference you HAVE to target the criminals. Targeting law abiding gun owners does not solve the problem.

Releasing criminals who commit crimes with a firearm is the problem. Gangbangers caught bringing these guns into the cities should be made an example of.

I am a gun owner. Variety matters, in my opinion. None of my firearms have (in my possession) posed a threat to anyone. If I wish to buy/sell/trade (or give) with other like-minded gun owners who I know are legitimate privately, I shouldn't be hampered by new rules and regulations. And making a profit (without a FFL) would be illegal (under this Biden plan)? Nope.

 

[Arby]

I wish. Too bad that CMP was jacking up their prices for pieces of junk. I do have multiple 1911 pattern firearms.

My father gave it to me. He bought it from the Navy after WWII for $19.50. It was rebarreled, but otherwise, intact. I don't shoot it too often, I have other handguns that are more fun, and accurate.

 

[Toggle Almendro]

It looked like he was claiming that people who advocate for stricter gun laws oppose criminal background checks. I find that really find that hard to believe.

I recall a time when the left opposed a NRA-backed proposal to have background checks at gun shows. I forget the year, but the very late 1990s maybe.

They opposed it because the background checks would have had to have been completed within 24 hours.

Also, people don't purchase vehicles with the intent of using them on other people. So the two scenarios are way different, IMO.

Your opinion is incorrect. The scenarios are the same. Vehicles can be used as deadly weapons.

What "gun control extremist" would oppose criminal background checks? Smells like bullshit to me.

The ones in the Democratic Party in the very late 1990s. Assuming I am remembering the correct period of time.

 

[Toggle Almendro]

No gun owners who obey laws should be opposed to closing this loophole

There is no loophole to close.

And no, gun owners who obey laws have ample reason for opposing laws that violate their civil liberties. Criminalizing the sale of guns is unconstitutional.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Selling guns on the street is illegal already

No it isn't.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eugene Stoner would respectfully take issue with your picking of nits.

I doubt it.

When has a semi-auto-only AR-15 ever seen military use?

 

[Toggle Almendro]

If you buy a house for a car, you have to register it.

No you don't.

Yes. That's why modern weapons technology has made the 2A a technologically obsolete 18th century law.

That is incorrect. Freedom will never be obsolete.

Sure it is. The danger of such poor regulations on this particular class of hazardous equipment in our nation speaks for itself. It's off the charts. These things are not making us safer.

That is incorrect. Guns are not poorly regulated.

At least, not in the US.

Says who? Certainly not the military folks.

“Let me state unequivocally — For all intents and purposes, the AR-15 and rifles like it are weapons of war. It is a very deadly weapon with the same basic functionality that our troops use to kill the enemy. The AR-15 is ACCURATELY CALLED a ‘weapon of war.’ … Don’t take the bait when anti-gun-safety folks argue about it. They know it’s true. Now you do too.”"
- Retired Army Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton

“I spent a career carrying typically either an M16 or an M4 Carbine. An M4 Carbine fires a .223 caliber round which is 5.56 mm at about 3000 feet per second. When it hits a human body, the effects are devastating. It’s designed for that. That’s what our soldiers ought to carry. I personally don’t think there’s any need for that kind of weaponry on the streets and particularly around the schools in America. We’ve got to take a serious look—I understand everyone’s desire to have whatever they want—but we’ve got to protect our children, we’ve got to protect our police, we’ve got to protect our population. Serious action is necessary. Sometimes we talk about very limited actions on the edges and I just don’t think that’s enough.”
-Gen. Stanley McChrystal

Those people are lying.

They are also fascists.

 

[Rich2018]

Really? WTF. This would close the loophole and how most criminals get their guns

May 1, 2024 2:12 PM EDT Updated 3 hours ago


May 1 (Reuters) - More than two dozen Republican state attorneys general sued the Biden administration on Wednesday to stop a new rule that would require gun dealers to obtain licenses and conduct background checks when selling firearms at gun shows and online.

The lawsuits challenge a rule finalized last month that U.S. Justice Department officials said is aimed at closing the "gun show loophole." Under the rule, those selling weapons at gun shows, other venues and over the internet are subject to the same requirements as gun stores to check the backgrounds of potential buyers. The rule, which has not yet taken effect, will affect tens of thousands of gun sales a year, according to the Biden administration.

President Joe Biden has called on Congress to pass legislation requiring universal background checks and banning assault-style rifles, but Republican lawmakers oppose such laws as infringing on the U.S. Constitution's 2nd Amendment gun rights protections. In announcing his state's lawsuit, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives had exceeded its authority in promulgating the new rule.

"With today's lawsuit, it is my great honor to defend our Constitutionally protected freedoms from the out-of-control federal government," he said. Louisiana, Missouri and Utah, along with Gun Owners of America and other gun rights advocacy groups, joined the Texas lawsuit. The case was filed in federal court in Amarillo, Texas, whose only active judge, Matthew Kacsmaryk, was appointed by Republican former President Donald Trump. The court has become a preferred venue for conservatives challenging Biden administration policies.

https://www.reuters.com/legal/republican-led-us-states-sue-block-expanded-gun-background-checks-2024-05-01/

The answer is simple, make it national law.

 

[JMB1911A1]

The answer is simple, make it national law.

It is unconstitutional for the Federal government to regulate intrastate sales between two private individuals that are both residents of the same state. Sales (even private sales) that cross state lines are already subject to federal background checks.

 

[Rich2018]

It is unconstitutional for the Federal government to regulate intrastate sales between two private individuals that are both residents of the same state. Sales (even private sales) that cross state lines are already subject to federal background checks.

No it's not
Go buy a gun from a gun shop and see first hand what the regulations are for doing so.

 

[RF667799]

No it's not
Go buy a gun from a gun shop and see first hand what the regulations are for doing so.

That isn’t an example of an intrastate sale between two private individuals.

 

[JMB1911A1]

It is unconstitutional for the Federal government to regulate intrastate sales between two private individuals that are both residents of the same state. Sales (even private sales) that cross state lines are already subject to federal background checks.

No it's not
Go buy a gun from a gun shop and see first hand what the regulations are for doing so.

Reading is fundamental.

 

[Rich2018]

Reading is fundamental.

Perhaps

But you still need to buy a firearm from a licensed dealer to appreciate the restrictions that apply.

 

[RF667799]

Perhaps

But you still need to buy a firearm from a licensed dealer to appreciate the restrictions that apply.

How many have you bought?

 

[JMB1911A1]

Perhaps

But you still need to buy a firearm from a licensed dealer to appreciate the restrictions that apply.

Not even the topic of discussion regarding private sales. And trust me, I know how gun sales work, both for Class 1 and Class 3 firearms.

 

[jaeger19]

No it's not
Go buy a gun from a gun shop and see first hand what the regulations are for doing so.

Umm rich..
A gun shop is not a private sale.