Class III unconstitutional?

[dburkhead]

Can you find any legal cites that refer to and debate prior restraint other than first ammendment? I understand the concept and your intent in this discussion, but I'm not sure you're putting up a valid legal argument, at least in terms of published law review.

Look at where the actual restrictions on other rights are.

You're exactly right. So, we go back and get rid of that - no background checks. How would Bob Cheek know that the man or woman on the other side of the counter is a convicted felon?

Why is it Bob Cheek's repsonsibility to enforce such restrictions any more than it is John Buck's (As opposed to "Doe's") responsibility to check that someone buying that bus ticket isn't a parolee and not allowed to leave the State, or George Stag's responsibility to ensure that the person renting that room is not a wanted fugitive in another State.

It's the police's duty to enforce the law. As I suggested uptopic, if someone's RKBA can be restricted due to a felony conviction, then so can one's 4th Amendment protections against search and seizure. Instead of making all the folk who are not convicted felons pay for this "background check" why not make a concerted effort to search and check up on the felons and see if they are in possession of arms in violation of their terms of sentence/probation/parole?

I want to be absolutely clear - I think all of the gun laws are bunk. Drop them now. For the responsible, law-abiding citizen they are of no value or purpose for their purchases and activities. However, I am not sure that the US is, on the whole, mature enough to deal with such a reality.

For most of our history, that was exactly the reality. The primary exception was various local "gun laws" intended by and large to keep "those people" in their place, things like making sure that the Night Riders and Klansmen didn't have to deal with armed opposition.

Beyond that, it's generally been "law enforcement" that has led to many of the problems we've had. For instance, the NFA was, in large part, a response to mob violence of the 20's, which was a result of Prohibition--the primary use of machine guns was to shoot up rival gangs property. Yes, there were some highly publicised murders using them, but mostly, property damage and intimidation was the goal.

 

[cordex]

Was this directed at me?

Were you the one making up hypothetical situations intended to show how scary it would be if church-massacring machine guns were sold at half price to child-beating serial killers at Felons 'R' Us?

If so, then yes.

 

[slow1911s]

Why is it Bob Cheek's repsonsibility to enforce such restrictions any more than it is John Buck's (As opposed to "Doe's") responsibility to check that someone buying that bus ticket isn't a parolee and not allowed to leave the State, or George Stag's responsibility to ensure that the person renting that room is not a wanted fugitive in another State.

Ok. So, selling a firearm to a convicted felon would also no longer be illegal?

Were you the one making up hypothetical situations intended to show how scary it would be if church-massacring machine guns were sold at half price to child-beating serial killers at Felons 'R' Us?

If so, then yes.

I seem anti-gun to you then?

 

[dburkhead]

Ok. So, selling a firearm to a convicted felon would also no longer be illegal?

The illegality is in the felon, who has "no weapons" as part of his sentence, buying the firearm. Knowingly selling to a convicted felon would make one an "accessory" to that crime. However, it's not my place to investigate everyone to whom I might sell something against the chance that it might not be legal for them to buy it. I am not being paid to be a police officer, so why should I be required to do their job? Ditto for FFL holders.

I seem anti-gun to you then?

When you make anti-gun arguments, couched in anti-gun language, how do you expect to seem?

 

[cce1302]

Folks,

I asked if there should be no laws or regs regarding firearms. The answer was "yes." So, in I establish a hypothetical situation where someone who can't buy guns today can and then uses said gun to do harm. Murder is murder and there are clear penalties. I was trying (and failed) to ascertain whether or not having zero laws regarding firearms was a reality we were prepared for. I misunderstood. No laws means no laws for me.

Do I think gun contol laws work? No. Do we need more? No. Do we need fewer? Yes. Do I think it is a good idea to at least check and see if somone has a criminal history that might make a firearm purchase questionable? Probably. Should the Class III process be this complicated? Not any more so than standard gun purchases.

In my opinion, you are living in a fantasy world if you believe that the laws that state that a felon can't buy a gun actually prevent felons from buying guns.

You are living in an even bigger fantasy world if you believe that ANY law will prevent people such as those in your example from committing the acts you gave in your example.

Why would you use an example of something that has happened dozens of times under our current laws to argue that our current laws shouldn't be repealed because it will result in your example occurring again?

 

[slow1911s]

The illegality is in the felon, who has "no weapons" as part of his sentence, buying the firearm. Knowingly selling to a convicted felon would make one an "accessory" to that crime. However, it's not my place to investigate everyone to whom I might sell something against the chance that it might not be legal for them to buy it. I am not being paid to be a police officer, so why should I be required to do their job? Ditto for FFL holders.

As a citizen in a free society, you have no responsibility because you're not being paid or it isn't your place? It is unreasonable to expect someone who sells a firearm to inquire if this person can legally own a firearm?

When you make anti-gun arguments, couched in anti-gun language, how do you expect to seem?

I am about as anti-gun as you are John Lott.

Ok, so we drop the NFA 1934 and background checks. What else goes? Age restrictions? High capacity magazine restrictions, I'd hope.

 

[slow1911s]

In my opinion, you are living in a fantasy world if you believe that the laws that state that a felon can't buy a gun actually prevent felons from buying guns.

I don't believe the laws prevent them from buying guns. I do believe that they do funnel them to illegal sources and away from legal ones, much like a trooper sitting in the median - deterrence.

You are living in an even bigger fantasy world if you believe that ANY law will prevent people such as those in your example from committing the acts you gave in your example.

I don't believe that any gun laws prevent the unlawful activity - not in the past, not now, not in the future.

Why would you use an example of something that has happened dozens of times under our current laws to argue that our current laws shouldn't be repealed because it will result in your example occurring again?

Because the line of people who would make this very same argument forms to the left and stretches from here to San Francisco. And, btw, I'm not in that line.

 

[cce1302]

As a citizen in a free society, you have no responsibility because you're not being paid or it isn't your place? It is unreasonable to expect someone who sells a firearm to inquire if this person can legally own a firearm?

No more than it would be my place (or reasonable) to ask if they intended to stab someone with the knife I sold them. Or if they had ever been arrested for DUI if I were selling them a car. Or if they were going to write dirty words in a bathroom stall with the markers I sold them. Or if they were going to expose themselves in public while wearing the overcoat I sold them.

I am about as anti-gun as you are John Lott.

Ok, so we drop the NFA 1934 and background checks. What else goes? Age restrictions? High capacity magazine restrictions, I'd hope.

Are there magazine restrictions federally or in Indiana?

I'd keep the age restrictions except that minors can own/possess guns purchased by their parent/legal guardian, with the parent/legal guardian retaining legal responsibility.
I think due process applies to felons, those adjudicated mentally defective, fugitives from justice, and illegal aliens, but IANAL.

 

[dburkhead]

As a citizen in a free society, you have no responsibility because you're not being paid or it isn't your place? It is unreasonable to expect someone who sells a firearm to inquire if this person can legally own a firearm?

It's unreasonable to require it under force of law.

I am about as anti-gun as you are John Lott.

It's not John Lott participating in this thread making strawman horror story arguments about "what could happen."

Ok, so we drop the NFA 1934 and background checks. What else goes? Age restrictions? High capacity magazine restrictions, I'd hope.

Age restrictions are more of a gray area. One of the aspects of "due process" is not just criminal investigation but a court finding of mental incompetence where one is incapable of managing his own affairs (stay with me for a moment here). Under those circumstances a person's handling of their finances can be handed over to a court appointed ward, or the person could be involuntarily institutionalized. Under those circumstances, "no weapons" is also a legitimate restriction. Now, when it comes to minors, this kind of "mental incompetence" is the default position. They have parents or guardians who are the ones to make the determination whether they can handle their own money, who they can have in their rooms and when, and so forth. And, likewise, with firearms it should be the parents/guardians who make that determination. But this presumed "mental incompetence" is only a default. There are "emancipated minors" who basically get the court to say they can handle their own affairs and these individuals should have as much right as any other legal adult to purchase firearms.

Magazine restrictions have never been anything other than a red herring. Federally, they have already been dropped when the AWB sunsetted in 2004 and Indiana, to the best of my knowledge, has no such restriction (better not, a friend of mine has a belt-fed semiautomatic 1919a4).

 

[CarmelHP]

According to slow1911s

I want to be absolutely clear - I think all of the gun laws are bunk. Drop them now. For the responsible, law-abiding citizen they are of no value or purpose for their purchases and activities. However, I am not sure that the US is, on the whole, mature enough to deal with such a reality.

For most of our history, that was exactly the reality. The primary exception was various local "gun laws" intended by and large to keep "those people" in their place, things like making sure that the Night Riders and Klansmen didn't have to deal with armed opposition.

But we were much older then, we're much younger now.

 

[dburkhead]

I don't believe the laws prevent them from buying guns. I do believe that they do funnel them to illegal sources and away from legal ones, much like a trooper sitting in the median - deterrence.

The trooper in the median gets people to slow down, it deters speeding (while he's there anyway).

What possible difference does it make whether a felon gets a gun from an illegal vs. a legal source? He's still got the gun.

I don't believe that any gun laws prevent the unlawful activity - not in the past, not now, not in the future.

If they don't prevent unlawful activity, what purpose do they serve? If it's to add some extra to a conviction why not just make the penalty to the base crime higher? Why penalize everybody who doesn't commit the crime?

Because the line of people who would make this very same argument forms to the left and stretches from here to San Francisco. And, btw, I'm not in that line.

If you were looking for a "how to respond when people make xxx argument" then why not say so rather than presenting the argument as if it were your own?

 

[slow1911s]

The trooper in the median gets people to slow down, it deters speeding (while he's there anyway).

What possible difference does it make whether a felon gets a gun from an illegal vs. a legal source? He's still got the gun.

I'm referring to relative ease. You and I can do FTF transactions and walk into any shop in the state, pull out our lifetime permit, and walk out - easy. Felons - they have to know people. They have to talk. People get paid to rat them out. I'm not saying it is good or worth it, but that is a reality.

If they don't prevent unlawful activity, what purpose do they serve? If it's to add some extra to a conviction why not just make the penalty to the base crime higher? Why penalize everybody who doesn't commit the crime?

None, I agree and we shouldn't.

If you were looking for a "how to respond when people make xxx argument" then why not say so rather than presenting the argument as if it were your own?

Because of the whole preaching to the choir thing. And, because I love playing devil's advocate and pick things apart. I wonder why have this conversation at all if everyone is going to agree? I'm a pain in the ass, I know.

 

[cce1302]

I'm referring to relative ease. You and I can do FTF transactions and walk into any shop in the state, pull out our lifetime permit, and walk out - easy. Felons - they have to know people. They have to talk. People get paid to rat them out. I'm not saying it is good or worth it, but that is a reality.

What does a LTCH have to do with buying a handgun? I've never been asked to see it when buying from an FFL.

Which is easier?
A) Knowing people to talk to and buying FTF (felon)
B) Robbing people of their handguns when they're not home (felon)
C) Filling out a 4473 and get a background check (non-felon)

 

[dburkhead]

I'm referring to relative ease. You and I can do FTF transactions and walk into any shop in the state, pull out our lifetime permit, and walk out - easy. Felons - they have to know people. They have to talk. People get paid to rat them out. I'm not saying it is good or worth it, but that is a reality.

You're mistaken about the LTCH. As for the "know people" it's not that hard if one really wants to get a gun from an illegal source. In some states their carry permit serves in lieu of a NICS check, but Indiana isn't one of those states.

One of the mistakes that "law abiding" people make is not realizing just how easy it is for criminals to do things like that: get drugs, get guns, get pretty much whatever.

None, I agree and we shouldn't.



Because of the whole preaching to the choir thing. And, because I love playing devil's advocate and pick things apart. I wonder why have this conversation at all if everyone is going to agree? I'm a pain in the ass, I know.

If you are going to pretend to be an "anti-gunner" then don't be expressing surprise when people believe you.

 

[CarmelHP]

If you are going to pretend to be an "anti-gunner" then don't be expressing surprise when people believe you.

Is that like when Barry Obamy says he "supports the 2nd Amendment" after looking at the polls?

 

[slow1911s]

I apologize, I was mistaken about the waiting period. My last over the counter purchase was back when that was in effect and the permit made that nil.

Filing out the 4473 is easier, but a PITA. I have no experience with 1 or 2, but I can't imagine them being easier.

 

[dburkhead]

I apologize, I was mistaken about the waiting period. My last over the counter purchase was back when that was in effect and the permit made that nil.

Filing out the 4473 is easier, but a PITA. I have no experience with 1 or 2, but I can't imagine them being easier.

Then you need to listen to interviews with actual criminals on the subject. Illegal guns are ridiculously easy for criminals to get their hands on.

Back around '89 or so one of the Networks did a special where they "traced" through the various crimes in which it had been used through a significant chunk of the Midwest. Somebody would use it in some crime, then it would get traded/sold to someone else and, a bit down the line, would be used in another crime. Their purpose apparently was to show how the availability of guns was such a problem (presumably, on the premise that if this one gun "caused" so much trouble, how much more trouble do all the millions of guns in "circulation" cause). What it told me was that if a single gun was the gun used in so many crimes committed with this one gun obtained and passed around through illegal channels that the criminal "need" for guns can be supplied with a very small supply and that, therefore, restrictions on guns among law abiding individuals can be expected to have little to no effect on the criminal use of guns.

In the "example" you gave uptopic, the individual who has spent several years in prison cannot help but come out of there knowing who to talk to if he wants to find an illegal gun (or drugs, or to have somebody's legs broken, or what have you). If nothing else, he knows the other criminals who were there with him and can find someone he did time with to ask. A phone call no more difficult than looking up the nearest gun shop in the yellow pages.

 

[JNG]

After the Heller decision, this constitutionality of Class III collapses into whether a regulatory system/transfer tax/manufacture ban on a whole class of weapons is a "reasonable restriction" on the exercise of the 2nd amendment right. Having worked in the chambers of a federal judge, I can say with some confidence that most of them would be inclined to assume that restricting machine guns is "reasonable" based solely on the distinguished age and long social acceptance of the restriction. Is this really just a masked form of judicial hoplophobia? Probably. But, pragmatically, it means the odds are against a court finding the restriction unconstitutional if it is challenged.