General Categories > General Firearm Discussion
Can i check the status of an NICS bg check myself?
JimP:
--- Quote ---Question: Should convicted felons and mentally incompetent people be able to own/possess/carry firearms?
--- End quote ---
If they are so dangerous that they can't have a gun, why are they not locked up?
It makes no difference to me whether some nutter shoots me or bashes my head in with a chair: If they have murder on their mind, they will do it, regardless of the tool used.
If someone is so bad that they can't behave themselves with a firearm, then they are so bad that they need to be kept away from me and mine, not have firearms kept away from them: heaven knows that they can hurt you with a stick, bottle, phonecord, a ball point pen, or even no weapon at all.
We let felons vote, for pete's sake .......
Tulkas:
--- Quote from: jthhapkido on March 02, 2012, 10:06:32 AM ---I hear this sort of thing a lot with people, and it interests me...
Question: Should convicted felons and mentally incompetent people be able to own/possess/carry firearms?
If your answer is "No" then you are saying that the "shall not be infringed" part of the 2nd amendment actually says "shall not be infringed except in special circumstances."
--- End quote ---
I'm not saying that at all.
If a person is convicted of a felony he loses most of his civil rights, including the right to possess firearms. He is no longer numbered among "the people" whose right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
If a person is mentally incompetent, and I include people who have been ordered to a mental evaluation or had a protection order filed against them, then that person should be in the NICS data base if the law, changed as a result of the Virginia Tech shootings, is obeyed.
--- Quote ---If you said "No" then by definition, there needs to be a way to check to make sure that said categories of people don't obtain firearms. There are several methods to that---one is a government check, and the other (in Nebraska) is to obtain a permit (which is a fairly offensive term, really) to purchase firearms.
--- End quote ---
I didn't say "No" and I agree that "said categories of people" should be prohibited access to firearms. That's the purpose of the NICS background check, I have no problem with that.
In Nebraska the law, 69-2404, states that "Any person desiring to purchase, rent, ... shall apply ..." for a certificate. I view this as requiring a citizen to beg permission to exercise a right.
This law violates the US Constitution, Amendment II by placing a precondition on exercising the right guaranteed by the Amendment. This is clearly infringement.
--- Quote ---They both do the same job. For many people, the permit system in NE is less annoying than the gov phone call check.
--- End quote ---
Let's see if they do the same job:
The background check you pay $5.00 for is apparently the same NICS check that a firearms dealer gets from the ATF. There may be an additional check from a state data base but no one has said so. In any case the ATF is a national data base, not local.
The certificate is good for three years. Suppose that I bought a certificate 18 months ago, have since threatened my wife and she has gotten a protection order against me. A firearms dealer wouldn't know about the protection order if he depended on the certificate only, even if the protection order were filed, without a current background check.
The law can't be enforced. If I trust a person not to blab I could sell him anything in my arsenal without seeing a certificate. Also think gun show parking lot, cash deal between strangers.
--- Quote ---Either way, if you said that felons and mentally incompetent people shouldn't have guns, you are stuck with SOME method for said check.
--- End quote ---
I have no problem with a background check as is done by the ATF on the NICS.
--- Quote ---<snip>
That being said, however, that isn't the situation in which we currently live, nor will you be able to obtain support from ANY governing body attempting to make it so. Feel free to try, but it won't work.
--- End quote ---
I'm not sure of your meaning above so I won't guess. I am doing my best to get 69-2404 and subsequent sections repealed, or at least changed to become optional.
--- Quote ---So---if you did say "No" to the original: What about it is particularly unconstitutional?
--- End quote ---
I dislike repeating myself but...
"This law violates the US Constitution, Amendment II by placing a precondition on exercising the right guaranteed by the Amendment."
BTW this topic is hashed out in http://nebraskafirearms.org/forum/index.php/topic,4956.0.html so I suggest that we move any further discussion over there.
T.
JimP:
--- Quote ---If a person is convicted of a felony he loses most of his civil rights, including the right to possess firearms.
--- End quote ---
Not so. Felons who have served their sentence/finished parole can vote in this state.
They can do just darn near everything EXCEPT have a gun........
Dan W:
--- Quote from: JimP on March 03, 2012, 10:34:13 PM ---Not so. Felons who have served their sentence/finished parole can vote in this state.
They can do just darn near everything EXCEPT have a gun........
--- End quote ---
Can you cite the terms of that restoration of civil rights? I was under the impression that only the Pardons Board can restore those rights
JTH:
I originally said:
--- Quote ---Question: Should convicted felons and mentally incompetent people be able to own/possess/carry firearms?
If your answer is "No" then you are saying that the "shall not be infringed" part of the 2nd amendment actually says "shall not be infringed except in special circumstances."
--- End quote ---
To which Tulkas replied:
--- Quote from: Tulkas on March 03, 2012, 02:20:01 PM ---I'm not saying that at all.
If a person is convicted of a felony he loses most of his civil rights, including the right to possess firearms. He is no longer numbered among "the people" whose right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
--- End quote ---
Which is interesting---because then they aren't "rights" now are they? If we can give them and take them away, then they are privileges. (No matter what else we want to call them.)
The original writers made mention of the fact that these "rights" were not granted or given by the government---that they existed prior to that, and were the rights of all people. As such, you can't take them away---if they are a _right_.
So what you are saying is that they are a privilege, they can be taken away by the government, and therefore can be (obviously) infringed as long as so do it in a way that people won't argue?
I find this similar to Mr. Holder's contention that it is okay for us to completely ignore the laws of our nation just because we are acting in someone else's country. Isn't that interesting? For all of our commentaries about "rights" that belong to "all people," we can just ignore them based on geography. (For example, it is okay to go murder an American citizen in another country without due process of law---which means a court case. But hey, he wasn't here, so we can just ignore the laws which we are supposed to uphold that pertain to all people.)
Note: this is different from saying other countries should use our laws. What I'm saying is that our country says that all people have certain rights. So why is it that if people aren't in our country, they no longer count or have rights?
Back to the original point: The right says "the people" and "shall not be infringed." You say that some people aren't people anymore, and don't have these rights that "the people" have.
So---obviously, "infringed" isn't a problem.
You then bring up: "The law can't be enforced. If I trust a person not to blab I could sell him anything in my arsenal without seeing a certificate. Also think gun show parking lot, cash deal between strangers." ---as an argument. However, this is nonsense, as it really wouldn't be covered by the standard NICS phone check either, now would it? Let's stay on topic here.
Interesting enough, you say that the NE permit (which again, I don't particularly like) is a "precondition" and thus an infringement. But you also say: "I have no problem with a background check as is done by the ATF on the NICS." ----which is ALSO a precondition on buying a firearm, and this is exactly the same. (I agree that requiring a fee for the permit is different---but the precondition point is still the same.)
So again, we are back to "it isn't a right, infringements are fine as long as they are the ones I don't mind."
You ended with:
--- Quote ---BTW this topic is hashed out in http://nebraskafirearms.org/forum/index.php/topic,4956.0.html so I suggest that we move any further discussion over there.
--- End quote ---
Yes, and your arguments were similar there when you ignored what other people were saying. As such, they had similar logical errors.
I note for the record here that I haven't actually said my own opinion here regarding felons and rights, nor about whether or not "rights" can or should be "infringed" or to what level.
My point is merely that if you say certain people don't have rights, then they aren't rights. If they aren't rights, then "shall not be infringed" is meaningless, except in your opinion of whether or not a particular infringement is annoying.
Either it is a right that shall not be infringed, or it isn't. In one case, the government cannot give, change, alter, or remove it. In the other, the government can (and will) do whatever we allow it to do.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version