U.S. senators reach deal on gun-sale background checks

Background checks are good if they are actually effectively checked. Many will slip through the cracks. Need only look at the airport TSA morons as an example.

Nullification by states, such as Kansas and others to follow will negate these actions.

The kind neighbors to the North are a better example:

From wiki:

" The year following the introduction of firearms licensing in Canada (1977), saw a continuation of the pre-existing decline in murder involving firearms, relative to other mechanisms. [31] From 1977 to 2003 Canada firearm homicide has declined from 1.15 to 0.5 per 100,000, while other mechanisms declined less significantly (1.85 to 1.23 per 100,000). [32][31] A landmark 2011 study by Dr. Caillin Langmann found no beneficial effect on Canada's homicide or spousal homicide rates as a result of any of Canada's major gun control legislation since 1974, including FAC and PAL licensing, storage laws, the characterization of many types of firearms as prohibited or restricted, magazine restrictions, etc., all of which were enacted in that time period. [33] Currently, shooting and stabbing represent the two most common mechanisms for homicide in Canada, each accounting for approximately 30% of murders. [34]

Overall suicide in Canada peaked in 1978 at 14.5 per 100,000, [35] declining by 22% (11.3 per 100,000) in 2004. [36][37] During this same time period, firearm suicides declined by 55% (1287 individuals to a low of 568)

[38] while the number of non-firearm suicides increased by 52% (2,046 in 1977 to 3,116 in 2003). [citation needed] In response to the 2001 registration requirements, some psychiatric doctors have argued that the legislation is not as effective as treatment in the prevention of suicide, given alternate mechanisms are available for suicide. [39]

Accidental death, of any kind, is rare claiming 27.9 people per 100,000 in 2000. Of these, firearms accidents account for 0.3% (0.1 per 100,000), ranking below the 37% for transportation (10.2 per 100,000), 28% for unspecified (7.7 per 100,000), 18% for falls (5.1 per 100,000), and 11% for poisoning (3.1 per 100,000)."

" Gun politics in Canada is largely polarized between two groups with opposing views. One group includes those who object to the registration of personal firearms and the other group includes those who believe in strict gun control.

Registration of firearms in Canada has been an issue since the 1930s when the registration of handguns became mandatory. Over the past few decades, legislation had become increasingly restrictive for firearm owners and from 1995 until 2012, all firearms were required to be registered. As of April 6, 2012, the registration of non-restricted firearms is no longer required in any province or territory, except for Quebec, pending litigation. Systematic auditing of firearm owners and sports is implemented and enforced in most of Central Canada, [1][2] and to a lesser extent, in Western Canada (in most cases firearm ownership regulations vary slightly in different provinces and territories, where some provinces have decided to mandate their own laws, such as the Quebec Bill 9 course, which is mandatory for all owners of restricted firearms)."

USSA is going the wrong way.

Isnt that just common sense to get background checks on people who buy weapons?

Yep.

" Isnt that just common sense to get background checks on people who buy weapons?"

And the law-abiding people do.

It's the non-law-abiding folks, such as Chicago/LA gang members etc that never do. And it's those who are intent on committing violent acts upon others who will commit those violent acts. The crime is the crime. When someone mows down a crowd of pedestrians(children, mothers, elderly) with a car, as in Guam recently, it's the driver's violent act that gets prosecuted. It's not whether the car was a HUMVEE, Cadillar sedan, or Toyota Prius.

The National Rifle Association issued a statement on Wednesday saying that “expanding background checks at gun shows will not prevent the next shooting, will not solve violent crime and will not keep our kids safe in schools.”

...no, but more guns will according to the NRA, right? Yeah right.

At the same time, I'm all for eliminating gun violence, but I don't recall hearing that these lunatics responsible for mass shootings in the US had criminal records,so even though criminal record checks should be mandatory/common sense, they definitely would not reduce the number of these tragic incidents.

And even if all mental health professionals report the names of all their patients (which won't happen), you still won't prevent some mentally 'unsound' people from getting guns. The American gun culture is too stubborn to make any dramatic or significant changes.

The US is awash with guns, these watered down ideas will do squat, so the US will just have to wait until the next & then the next, next ,next tragedies happen one after the other sadly.

I grew up with guns in the house, no big deal, but those who are so against reasonable regulations, precautions etc are for the most part simply clueless. Until these paranoid types get a better grip on reality the US will continue to see gun violence, shoganai ne!

Tahoochi,

No criminal records but on stacks of meds.

"… but those who are so against reasonable regulations, precautions etc are for the most part simply clueless."

I understand what you're saying. The thing is, though, that how one defines "reasonable regulations" is very highly subjective. Take Feinstein for example; in her opinion, taking all guns away is reasonable. Then, only cops/robbers/killers would have them. That doesn't sound reasonable, much less Constitutional.

Why wasn't this being done already? It's pretty moronic to allow anyone access to a gun without first checking up on them.

but Democrats are zoning in on those on the other side that they believe can be brought on board,

If it's the U.S. Congress you're talking about here, the word should be "bought," not brought.

No reason not to have background checks on a legal gun sale transaction.

" Why wasn't this being done already? It's pretty moronic to allow anyone access to a gun without first checking up on them."

It's called NICS:

" The National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) is a point-of-sale system for determining eligibility to purchase a firearm in the United States of America. Federal Firearms License (FFL) holders are generally required by law to use the NICS to determine if it is legal to sell a firearm to a prospective purchaser. Mandated by the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993 and launched by the FBI on November 30, 1998, NICS determines if the buyer is prohibited from buying a firearm under the Gun Control Act of 1968. It is linked to the National Crime Information Center and the Interstate Identification Index among other databases maintained by the FBI. [1]"

Or were you unaware of this?

NRA: "expanding background checks at gunshows will not prevent the next shooting"

No, but it might prevent some shootings in the future.

"Expanding background checks enjoys sweeping public support, with polls showing about 9 in 10 Americans in favor"

Yet, incredibly, it's still near impossible to make it so.

I grew up with guns in the house, no big deal, but those who are so against reasonable regulations, precautions etc are for the most part simply clueless.

Over 90% of the American people want background checks prior to any sale/transfer of weapons from one owner to another. A large percentage falsely believed this was already the case. Those opposed to this common-sense legislation are either evil or worse off than clueless. Moreover, the background checks should consider acts of anti-social behavior and mental illness.

It's not whether the car was a HUMVEE, Cadillar sedan, or Toyota Prius.

LOL. Society is still going to require drivers to prove their competency on the road before issuing them a license. It's called "due diligence." The same kind of competency should be required to be demonstrated before issuing a green light to obtain firearms and ammunition.

Society is still going to require drivers to prove their competency on the road before issuing them a license. It's called "due diligence." The same kind of competency should be required to be demonstrated before issuing a green light to obtain firearms and ammunition.

Driving a car is called a "privilege" and subject to all the rules and requirements that society deems to infringe on it before being granted a license to drive. Even if you have a perfect driving record society could revoke your privilege to drive for any number of reasons if society saw it as fit to do.

Owning a gun is called a citizens "right" that shall not be infringed as stated in the second amendment of our Constitution. Society is quite limited as to what it can and cannot do constitutionally with regards as to individuals owning guns. No legitimate comparison can be made between the two.

Society is still going to require drivers to prove their competency on the road before issuing them a license

A very good observation - own a car and a license is legally a big deal in the US (as in most countries). Imagine if car owners took the same approach to car ownership as they do gun ownership:

"How dare these liberals interfer with are consititutional right of free movement guaranteed in the constitution?? Requiring a licence will just mean that the criminals who cannot drive will just carry on as they were. And I do not want to be on some liberal "driving license" database. That would mean that the police and the authorities would know that I own an automobilie! Again, the criminals will not be on this database, but a law abiding citizen like me will be!!! Anyway, you ban some people from driving, all they will do is take a bus, airplane, or railway. Hell, some of them may get on a bicycle, which is just as dangerous - you can easily kill witha bicycle or cause an accident. If fact, in [insert name of country] when car licensing, registration and insurance was introduced, accidents went up!."

Owning a gun is called a citizens "right" that shall not be infringed as stated in the second amendment of our Constitution.

People do not emerge from the womb with an innate right to purchase firearms. The amendment speaks to keeping and bearing. Both those verbs apply after a firearm is obtained. Unless a person is manufacturing their own weapons, they will have to go to a seller.

People like yourself who push the second amendment argument as a "right to obtain" know full well it is a loser argument. Otherwise, devout second amendment advocates would be out there fighting for the "right" for any person to obtain a weapon for free if they could not afford to buy one. You know, just like the right of a person to receive legal counsel for a trial -- free if necessary.

Society is quite limited as to what it can and cannot do constitutionally with regards as to individuals owning guns.

Again, society has not limited itself whatsoever to making it a crime to sell weapons to people who should not have them. Society merely needs to employ more careful screening and analysis to enable itself to better identify who should not be able to buy them. With over 90% of Americans supporting this, it's an issue so common sense and simple that even most conservatives can grasp it.

No legitimate comparison can be made between the two.

LOL! In the minds of some perhaps.

Surf, yes I was unaware of that... I'm not an American. So why are people so against background checks if they are already being done?

Surf: And the law-abiding people do. It's the non-law-abiding folks, such as Chicago/LA gang members etc that never do.

Can you tell me any other laws that gang members in Chicago and LA obey? Should we do away with those, too? I have no clue why you guys seem to think this is somehow limited to guns. I think it's just been parroted so many times people believe it without really thinking about it.

sailwind: Driving a car is called a "privilege" and subject to all the rules and requirements that society deems to infringe on it before being granted a license to drive. (snip) Owning a gun is called a citizens "right" that shall not be infringed as stated in the second amendment of our Constitution.

So is hate speech protected under the First Amendment? Do you go around saying that laws against hate speech are an infringement? Probably not. Because it's just common sense. I'm sure there are plenty of limitations on guns that you would agree with, such as children owning them. It doesn't mean you are against the 2nd Amendment.

Again, society has not limited itself whatsoever to making it a crime to sell weapons to people who should not have them.

Society is constrained by what it can do with gun ownership and regulations by the constitution. There have been numerous Supreme court rulings on gun control issues through our nations history and these undisputed facts, Driving a car is not something that the Supreme court is going to be asked to rule if it is meets the Constitutional amendment to be declared if it is actually legal or not.

You cannot compare the two in an honest discussion. The standards for legality between the two are on a totally different plane. When there is an amendment that states the right of people to drive a car shall not be infringed then you would have a case. As of now you don't at all.

"… but those who are so against reasonable regulations, precautions etc are for the most part simply clueless."

Surf: I understand what you're saying. The thing is, though, that how one defines "reasonable regulations" is very highly subjective.

It really isn't. We all agree that criminals, kids, and mentally unstable people should not have access to guns. The question is how we go about doing that, not whether it should be done or not. When the argument by gun supporters is framed as "pro" or "anti" 2nd Amendment it makes common sense enforcement of the things we agree on next to impossible. Common sense ends up getting banned.

Unless a person is manufacturing their own weapons, they will have to go to a seller.

At the present time it's much cheaper to buy than to manufacture. There is currently some debate over the future applications of 3D printers and the potential legal ramifications of them. While in their current form such devices can only use plastic, plaster, and low melting point metals technology tends towards the fanciful as time progresses.

Otherwise it's $150 every three years to become a licensed firearms (non destructive device) manufacturer, $3000 per year to manufacture destructive devices (explosives, incendiaries, poison gas, grenades, and land mines), and $30 every three years to manufacture ammunition. It's actually not that hard to make quality firearms considering the schematics are easy to find, but the tools are expensive so most people just buy the weapons.

So is hate speech protected under the First Amendment? Do you go around saying that laws against hate speech are an infringement? Probably not.

Hate speech is protected under the first amendment (R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul) so long as it doesn't fall under 'immediate enticement of violence' or 'fighting words'. Laws against hate speech are an infringement regardless of how repugnant the message is.

One addition, it does cost and additional $500 per year to manufacture machine guns, short barrel shot guns, and some other destructive devices if you're not a major arms manufacturer and gross less than 500k per year from firearms sales. Just the man trying to keep me down.

The licensing for these is slow but fairly easy and once you get licensed once renewals can be done in 5-10 minutes. It honestly has taken me longer to renew my drivers license before than to renew my ammunition manufacturers and licensed historical licenses.

Society is constrained by what it can do with gun ownership and regulations by the constitution.

You keep trying to deflect the point to "ownership." A person born in America does not emerge from the womb owning a firearm. If they did, the right to keep and bear it would certainly apply.

So, at some point, a person will need to either manufacture a weapon or purchase one. It is that process that society already agrees to regulate. If the second amendment right is universal, the ability of society to restrict criminals from the purchase process would not stand up in court. But because society has that ability, your argument doesn't hold any water.

The standards for legality between the two are on a totally different plane.

Actually, they are not. As with legal ownership of guns previously purchased, the government can't simply come and confiscate someone's car or other property without due process. But if a person commits a felony, society can most certainly confiscate their weapons -- again proving the second amendment "right" is not universal. If they commit repeated traffic violations, their vehicle can most certainly be impounded.

When there is an amendment that states the right of people to drive a car shall not be infringed then you would have a case.

I suppose this is the classic conservative argument. They need everything spelled out for them in the constitution, which is why they want to propose all of these crazy, half-baked amendments. Normal due diligence and common sense just doesn't seem to apply for them.

The liberal argument is that people retain many more rights than conservatives like yourself will acknowledge. For example, driving a car or motorcycle might be deemed a "privilege" by some (who actually love government control), the simple fact is that if a government grants that "privilege" to some, it has to go a very long way to justify why they would deny it to others. So, the millionth person applying for a driver's license might very well view it as a right -- the right to be treated equally under the law.

It's rather amazing to me that some can't see how similar the two are. Society should hand out lethal firepower to criminally and/or mentally irresponsible people just because a second amendment says that "the people" can keep and bear arms in the interest of a well-regulated militia?

TheQuestion: so long as it doesn't fall under 'immediate enticement of violence' or 'fighting words'

Then phrase my words using that.

Otherwise it's $150 every three years to become a licensed firearms (non destructive device) manufacturer

So any convicted felon can pay $150 every three years and get a license to manufacture firearms.

So any convicted felon can pay $150 every three years and get a license to manufacture firearms.

Yes and No . In order to legally manufacture firearms a person needs to be able to legally posses one. Having a felony conviction is in most cases is an automatic disqualifier from possessing a firearm by federal law. So no, ANY convicted felon cannot slap down his one fifty and go into business.

But SOME convicted felons can. “Felony” is a very broad label and not all convicted felons are guilty of a violent crime. Say a big time CEO is convicted of price fixing, or rigging a contract bid in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act, he is a convicted felon. But his crimes are specifically exempted from the “felon in possession” statues as they now stand. We couldn’t be denying some mogul of industry his $80,000 Fabbri trap gun. Could we?

But even for the ordinary non-violent felon there is a process that could get his/her rights restored. All they have to do is submit a petition to the US Attorney General; if he/she (the AG) is cool with the idea it gets passed on to the Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms for review. If everything’s okay with the ATF it goes to the Federal District Courts who have the final jurisdiction in the process. Only hitch is, Congress routinely denies the funding for the ATF review process so your chances are slim to none. And Slim just left town. The only other way to get your rights back is via a Presidential Pardon.

So if you are a big time white collar criminal, or are best buds with Barack, no worries. But if you’re just a slob like the rest of us, no chance.

I'll be honest, except for the request for funding for better school security, I didn't see one NEW thing in that bill that isn't Already covered in other federal gun laws. All guns bought through the mail or over the internet already have to be sent to a licensed gun dealer before they can be transffered. All licensed gun dealers already have to to background checks on all gun sales they are a party to, whether in their shop or at a gun show. (I was a custom knife dealer and worked at gun shows for many years.) And since FBI stats show that less than 4% of criminals buy the guns they use through legal channels, this only has minimum effect on crime. The NRA has been lobbying for 20+ years for stricter enforcement of the gun laws that are already on the books, but no one wants to do that. In that time roughly 76,000 people have been denied a gun on background checks. Of those only 44 people have been found to be actually prohibited from owning guns, The rest were clerical errors and so called "false positives" (2 people with the same name, etc). Of the 44 who were actually prohibited by law from owning guns, only 17 of them have ever been brought up on charges, even though lying on the forms is a felony.

I often hear about the roughly 12,000 gun deaths each year in the US. When you subtract the number of shootings by police, and the number of civilian shootings ruled justifiable, you get a figure of around 8,000 per year. That's just deaths (including suicide). But lets add in gun crimes where no one dies. Armed assault, robbery, kidnapping, rape, attempted murder, etc. The FBI estimates firearms are used in close to 500,000 crimes per year in the US. A half million.

They also estimate that roughly 2 million violent crimes per year are stopped or prevented by citizens with legally owned firearms. That's four times as many. (So yes, since most people are not inclined to commit violent crimes, more guns DO equal less gun crime. Preditors don't like prey that bites back.)

The FBI estimates firearms are used in close to 500,000 crimes per year in the US. A half million.

A number you appear to think is insignificant compared to the 2m that are prevented (what is your source for this?)

The FBI states:

"Firearms were used in 67.8 percent of the nation’s murders, 41.3 percent of robberies, and 21.2 percent of aggravated assaults" Also "In 2011, an estimated 14,612 persons were murdered in the United States. "

It then states that murders involving a firearm were 8543, higher than your estimate for gun deaths including suicide.

So, the millionth person applying for a driver's license might very well view it as a right -- the right to be treated equally under the law.

Some folks can view it any way they want to and can demand to be treated equally under the law all they want, it's still a privilege and not some given right. I'm not even sure why you would even try and question this point between the two

It's obvious that guns were specifically cited by the founders for special consideration when it comes to laws and regulations by the Government so much so as to be given a status just as important as freedom of speech and all of our other rights. It's obvious driving does not reach this type of consideration and as you have pointed out our constitution can be amended. Since driving became really became prominent in society over 100 years ago there hasn't been an amendment during this whole history of our love affair with cars put forth that driving should also be placed in the same stature as guns, freedom of speech or our other rights for inclusion into our constitution. If driving was felt to have been raised to such a level as to be viewed as a right we would have amended our constitution to reflect driving's elevated status long ago. It doesn't get any more basic than for the difference between the two. Any attempt at comparisions that don't acknowledge this crucial distinction between the two really aren't doing anyone any favors at all on either side of the debate.

Some folks can view it any way they want to and can demand to be treated equally under the law all they want, it's still a privilege and not some given right.

Again, you are wrong because you fail to properly identify (or acknowledge) what the "privilege" actually is. If a person has a driving course on his own private property, he is free to drive to his heart's content without a license. (Many would consider it a right to be able to so, and most certainly not a privilege. Conservatives such as yourself might want to convince people otherwise.)

License or no license, there is nothing preventing a person from being the de facto owner of a vehicle. So the "privilege" comes in not with driving per se, but being able to operate a vehicle on public roadways with other licensed drivers. With the truth of this being evident, your points on driving not being an amendment are not only moot, but actually rather silly..

Again, you failed to address the points of how the second amendment does not grant freedom to purchase firearms, nor does it grant an inherent right to sell or distribute them without any regulation. As with vehicles, there is not an inherent freedom to take guns out in public and operate them without any restrictions. Moreover, a weapon may not even be operated on one's own property if there is a chance that the bullet will land on someone else's.

David: All guns bought through the mail or over the internet already have to be sent to a licensed gun dealer before they can be transffered. All licensed gun dealers already have to to background checks on all gun sales they are a party to, whether in their shop or at a gun show

Undercover checks have shown that a large percentage of gun dealers willfully break the law regarding background checks. Those are the ones who are supposed to be doing them. Add the online private sales and gun show private sales and you have a system that simply isn't being enforced by gun sellers. You seem to know your way around a gun sale so I'll just ask you: How long would it take you personally to get a gun without going through a background check?

And since FBI stats show that less than 4% of criminals buy the guns they use through legal channels, this only has minimum effect on crime.

What is a legal channel?

I often hear about the roughly 12,000 gun deaths each year in the US. When you subtract the number of shootings by police, and the number of civilian shootings ruled justifiable, you get a figure of around 8,000 per year.

There are 4,000 gun deaths by police and justifiable civilian shootings each year, or am I reading that wrong? Chicago had about 435 gun murders last year, so your stat (if I'm reading it correctly) would be equal to about 10 Chicagos.

more guns DO equal less gun crime. Preditors don't like prey that bites back.

Then with 200 million to 300 million guns in the US, wouldn't we be the safest country in the world?

yabitsApr. 12, 2013 - 11:52PM JST Again, you are wrong because you fail to properly identify (or acknowledge) what the "privilege" actually is. If a person has a driving course on his own private property, he is free to drive to his heart's content without a license. (Many would consider it a right to be able to so, and most certainly not a privilege. Conservatives such as yourself might want to convince people otherwise.)

Do you know anybody that gets a nice performance car and actually drives in his private property only? Most people don't have 100 acres in the backyard. Maybe you do.

yabits Apr. 12, 2013 - 11:52PM JST

the second amendment does not grant freedom to purchase firearms, nor does it grant an inherent right to sell or distribute them without any regulation

It's true that the 2nd amendment doesn't specifically grant the freedom to buy, sell or distribute firearms. And it's also true that, reasonable restrictions on who can and can not own a firearm and who can or can not sell them have been deemed, by the courts, to be legitimate within the scope of the Amendment and not seen as an "infringement". On the other hand, a blanket prohibition on an individual's ability to acquire one; clearly would be an infringement on the right to "keep and bear".

SuperLib Apr. 13, 2013 - 12:08AM JST

Undercover checks have shown that a large percentage of gun dealers willfully break the law regarding background checks.

How large of a percentage is that? I'd be really interested in seeing that data. Got a link to your source?

Do you know anybody that gets a nice performance car and actually drives in his private property only?

Whether I personally know anyone or not is irrelevant. The question is whether it is driving itself that is the privilege, or if it can also be considered a right (when done under certain circumstances, like on private property) that the government has no right infringing on.

Guns don’t kill people. People kill people. But guns help. It is very tempting when you have a power of instant kill in your hand. While there are people who own guns only for self-defense, there are much more people out there who would abuse their power and use it so casually. Knowing that you have a power to kill, a quarrel or a fight could easily turn into murder without a second thought. The U.S has close to 10,000 gun deaths annually while England only has less than 20 gun deaths. Why? Because England have a very strict law for people to bear arms. Countries that allowed people to own gun for reasons such as self-defense are simply confessing that they can’t protect you under the law of the state and are neglecting responsibility of social security. Do you want to live in a society where you tell your children that those armed people are criminals, or do you want them to know that everyone owns it and use it for survival?

On the other hand, a blanket prohibition on an individual's ability to acquire one; clearly would be an infringement on the right to "keep and bear".

It might be, but that would have to ultimately be tested in the courts.

A criminally violent person who is under a blanket prohibition to acquire a firearm could well bring a suit to test the law involved, feeling his second-amendment rights have been violated. It would be very interesting to see who would support his case.

Superlib: Undercover checks have shown that a large percentage of gun dealers willfully break the law regarding background checks.

Kuya808: How large of a percentage is that? I'd be really interested in seeing that data. Got a link to your source?

http://www.nyc.gov/html/cjc/downloads/pdf/nyc_pointclickfire.pdf

62 percent of private gun sellers agreed to sell a firearm to a buyer who said he probably couldn’t pass a background check. City investigators posing as illegal purchasers asked five of these sellers to meet in person and exchange the guns for cash. All five agreed. The investigators bought four handguns and a semi-automatic assault rifle while recording the transaction with hidden cameras.

Private sellers on Craigslist had the highest failure rate – roughly 82 percent – even though the site has a policy prohibiting firearms listings. The City also investigated unlicensed sellers on Armslist (54% failure rate), Gunlistings (77% failure rate), KSL.com (67% failure rate) and Glocktalk (78% failure rate).

40% of guns are sold through private sellers.

Another source: http://www.gunshowundercover2009.org/

The City of New York investigated 7 gun shows in 3 states involving buys from 47 gun sellers using hidden cameras. The investigation videos showed that 35 out of 47 sellers approached by undercover investigators at these gun shows sold guns illegally.

Even though they are not required to perform background checks, private dealers cannot sell to someone who they have reason to believe is prohibited from buying guns. Investigators attempted to purchase guns after telling private sellers that they probably could not pass a background check. 19 of 30 private sellers — 63% — broke the law by completing a sale to a buyer who they thought could not pass a background check.

Licensed dealers cannot allow someone to fill out the paperwork and undergo the background check if the dealer knows the person is not the actual buyer of the gun. This is a "straw sale" and it is a federal felony. The investigation looked at the practices of federally licensed dealers at gun shows to identify the prevalence of straw sales. 16 of 17 — 94% — of licensed dealers approached by our investigators at gun shows were willing to sell to someone who appeared to be a straw purchaser.

I can't say I entirely trust many of the statistics that I see, but I don't think they're the opposite of what I see, either. It shows a systemic problem with dealers skirting the law to make a sale. And this is what bugs me the most: The same people who are selling guns to anyone are from the same crowd that are telling us that gun laws don't work and we don't need new ones. It's a circular argument. If some gun dealers are ignoring the laws then they are the ones making them useless.

The question is whether it is driving itself that is the privilege, or if it can also be considered a right.

It can't the Miller vs Reed 1999 court decision already decided the issue........ period.

Miller does not have a fundamental “right to drive.”   In Dixon v. Love, 431 U.S. 105, 112-16, 97 S.Ct. 1723, 52 L.Ed.2d 172 (1977), the Supreme Court held that a state could summarily suspend or revoke the license of a motorist who had been repeatedly convicted of traffic offenses with due process satisfied by a full administrative hearing available only after the suspension or revocation had taken place.   The Court conspicuously did not afford the possession of a driver's license the weight of a fundamental right.   See also Mackey v. Montrym, 443 U.S. 1, 10, 99 S.Ct. 2612, 61 L.Ed.2d 321 (1979);  Bell v. Burson, 402 U.S. 535, 539, 542-43, 91 S.Ct. 1586, 29 L.Ed.2d 90 (1971).

In sum, Miller does not have a fundamental right to drive a motor vehicle, and the DMV did not unconstitutionally impede his right to interstate travel by denying him a driver's license.

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1054787.html

SuperLib

Thanks for the links. I'm with you about not entirely trusting the statistics. Both investigations were conducted by undercover operatives at the behest of Michael Bloomberg and that in itself makes me question the methods and results. I'm not saying the reports are false I just question the objectivity. Would you accept as gospel the findings of an investigation sponsored by Wayne LaPierre?

That being said, it's quite obvious that some shady dealings are taking place at gun shows and with private unlicensed sellers online and I feel it is entirely appropriate to take a closer look. But I think the best people to be doing that job are the BATF and law enforcement. I'm curious about what type of immunity these investigators enjoyed. If I solicit an illegal drug transaction I'm breaking the law and could face charges. Conspiracy to break the law is breaking the law and some of these investigators were crossing state lines in an attempt to do just that, break the law. I would be very interested in seeing the inter-agency agreements that were entered into to keep everything on the up and up. Conspiring to break the law as part of an investigation that results in an arrest is one thing. Doing it at as stunt to lend support to someone’s personal agenda is something altogether different .

Maybe I missed it, but I didn’t see anything about any arrests being made as a result of the illegal transactions. The way I see it, the apparent lack of enforcement of the laws we already have on the books is a major contributing factor in many of these questionable sales. The shady dealers are not afraid to break the law because, even if they get caught, not much happens. I think that aggressive enforcement of existing laws is the most logical first step in addressing the problem.

Yabits

A criminally violent person who is under a blanket prohibition to acquire a firearm could well bring a suit to test the law involved, feeling his second-amendment rights have been violated. It would be very interesting to see who would support his case.

In the 2008 case of the District of Columbia vs. Heller the SCOTUS held that “the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.” At the time a number of scholars believed that that finding would undermine the “felon in possession” law as it was laid out in the Firearms Control Act of 1968. In writing for the majority Justice Antonin Scalia sought to allay those fears by stating "Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill." So the issue of a convicted felon being prohibited from possessing a firearm was addressed and the idea of the prohibition was upheld.

The “felon in possession” law was challenged in the Supreme Court case of the United States vs. Hayes in 2009 and once again the Court affirmed the Government’s ability to enforce the “felon in possession” law.

It’s gone to court and the Feds won, I don’t think anyone, even the NRA, touch a case like that now.

The “felon in possession” law was challenged in the Supreme Court case of the United States vs. Hayes in 2009 and once again the Court affirmed the Government’s ability to enforce the “felon in possession” law. It’s gone to court and the Feds won, I don’t think anyone, even the NRA, touch a case like that now.

Perhaps posters like Sailwind will get the word that the second amendment is not a universal right, and that government can certainly infringe upon it when it comes to a defined class of individuals, felons being among them.

In sum, Miller does not have a fundamental right to drive a motor vehicle, and the DMV did not unconstitutionally impede his right to interstate travel by denying him a driver's license.

The case did not test whether government could infringe upon a person driving a vehicle without a license exclusively on private property. Anyone who believes that the government could not so infringe would be admitting that driving a vehicle under those circumstances is a right. You're great at coming up with irrelevant cases. Perhaps you can come up with one where the government successfully prosecuted an individual for driving a vehicle in a proper manner on his own property.

It is only when the public is involved that the right becomes a privilege. It should go without saying that the parallels with guns are most valid: A bad driver shouldn't get a license; a bad person shouldn't get a gun. Period. In that case, despite the second amendment, the restrictions against gun ownership are even more pronounced: A bad (unlicensed) driver can still own a vehicle and drive it on private property.

Kuya 808: The way I see it, the apparent lack of enforcement of the laws we already have on the books is a major contributing factor in many of these questionable sales. The shady dealers are not afraid to break the law because, even if they get caught, not much happens. I think that aggressive enforcement of existing laws is the most logical first step in addressing the problem.

I agree, but this is what we're up against for the very common sense item of universal background checks: "The letter also notes that background checks are “opposed by the National Rifle Association, Gun Owners of America, the National Association for Gun Rights, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, and other national and state level pro-Second Amendment organizations.” (http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2013/04/11/1851941/house-conservatives-urge-boehner-to-kill-gun-safety-bill/?mobile=nc)

And it also would seem to be a situation where gun supporters are calling for more strict enforcement, but it comes down to "please police our group better so we don't break the law." Law enforcement agencies should have shill buyers at gun shows and arrest people right on the spot in a very high profile way. That should cut down on people openly doing it.