General Categories > General Firearm Discussion
Can i check the status of an NICS bg check myself?
Tulkas:
--- Quote from: jthhapkido on March 07, 2012, 04:07:22 PM ---I originally said:
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
--- 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.
--- End quote ---
--- 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.)
--- End quote ---
I see we're having fun with semantics this morning. ;) Questions you might ponder:
Is the Constitution the basic law of the land? What are the first ten Amendments called? Check http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution.html if you wish.
We are referring to inborn rights codified and protected in the United States by the Constitution, Amendments one through ten. Society, in the case of a convicted felon may prevent exercise of those rights. A felon usually loses the right to dwell where he pleases while he's in the slammer. He also loses rights to privacy and security in his possessions while inside and the right to possess firearms for a greater or lesser period of time after he is released.
Governments, usually wrongly, also prevent exercise of these inborn rights. That is my problem with http://nebraskalegislature.gov/laws/statutes.php?statute=69-2404. I feel that, as an adult citizen who isn't a felon, I have an inborn right to purchase anything I can afford without begging permission from anyone, least of all a government employee.
--- Quote ---
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_.
--- End quote ---
But "society" may restrict the exercise of these rights, as discussed above.
--- Quote ---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?
--- End quote ---
I'm glad you posed that as a question since I am definitely not saying anything like that.
The object of this exercise, and communication with the hired help in Lincoln, is to argue and to point out the obvious so that a remedy may be found.
<snip irrelevant comments about Eric Holder>
--- Quote ---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.
--- End quote ---
I think this point has been adequately covered.
--- Quote ---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.
--- End quote ---
As written, "Any person desiring to purchase, lease, rent, or receive transfer of a handgun shall apply with the chief of police or sheriff of the applicant's place of residence for a certificate." the law cannot be enforced, and it has nothing to do with a NICS background check.
--- Quote ---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.)
--- End quote ---
Nope, a background check isn't a precondition at all but a demonstration of a qualification. It's much the same as taking a DMV employee for a ride when renewing a driver's license or taking a FAA designated examiner for a flight when upgrading a pilot's license.
--- Quote ---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."
--- End quote ---
I've never said anything like that. I wish you wouldn't try to attribute the products of your misunderstanding to me.
--- Quote ---
You ended with:
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.
Yes, and your arguments were similar there when you ignored what other people were saying. As such, they had similar logical errors.
--- End quote ---
You're entitled to your opinion. I happen to disagree.
--- Quote ---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.
--- End quote ---
Do you have an opinion?
--- Quote ---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.
--- End quote ---
You're wrong, I've discussed the subject above.
--- Quote ---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.
--- End quote ---
Governments, like any other hired help, will get by with as much as they can get away with. We see that every day, it's human nature. Our responsibility as citizens is to keep government on a tight leash, if we can pry ourselves away from the TV long enough to pay attention to what is happening.
T.
JTH:
--- Quote from: Tulkas on March 08, 2012, 01:12:37 PM ---To which Tulkas replied:
Quote from: Tulkas on March 03, 2012, 02:20:01 PMI see we're having fun with semantics this morning. ;)
--- End quote ---
No. It is the main point, and one that people argue. Matter of fact, you use it when it suits you. (And you ignore it when it doesn't fit your opinions.)
Either it is a fundamental right, or it isn't.
--- Quote ---Questions you might ponder:
Is the Constitution the basic law of the land? What are the first ten Amendments called? Check http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution.html if you wish.
We are referring to inborn rights codified and protected in the United States by the Constitution, Amendments one through ten.
--- End quote ---
Thank you for the condescension, which unfortunately, helps me make my point. "Inborn rights."
Using the specific phrasing "Shall not be infringed."
So, again I ask---can convicted felons and such have rights taken away? If so, then they aren't inborn rights, they are privileges given (and taken away) by a government.
--- Quote ---Society, in the case of a convicted felon may prevent exercise of those rights. A felon usually loses the right to dwell where he pleases while he's in the slammer. He also loses rights to privacy and security in his possessions while inside and the right to possess firearms for a greater or lesser period of time after he is released.
--- End quote ---
So, they aren't rights. Got it.
--- Quote ---Governments, usually wrongly, also prevent exercise of these inborn rights.
--- End quote ---
You are aware that the "government" is the one who also takes away the privileges of criminals? And that the logic used to take away the privileges of criminals is exactly the same as that used to limit your privileges?
You've now said "inborn rights"---and yet say that people can lose these rights (by being criminals). You can't have it both ways.
I realize your followup is probably going to be some commentary on how you "only said that the exercise of that right was being prevented." However, if you can't exercise a right, then you don't have that right.
Whereupon, it isn't a right under our laws. It is a privilege given to you by those who make laws.
slight snip, then:
--- Quote --- I feel that, as an adult citizen who isn't a felon, I have an inborn right to purchase anything I can afford without begging permission from anyone, least of all a government employee.But "society" may restrict the exercise of these rights, as discussed above.I'm glad you posed that as a question since I am definitely not saying anything like that.
--- End quote ---
You do realize that doesn't make sense, right? First you say it is an inborn right. Then you say that exercise of that right can be prevented. Then you say that right means you don't need to beg permission. Then you say that the exercise of those rights may be restricted.
Sorry, you only get to pick one side. Because either it is a right, or it isn't. If it IS a right of all people, then when the people discuss the problem with their government, they have one type of argument. If it ISN'T a right of all people (in other words, it is something that the government can restrict) then it is another type of argument, because it is an argument about "how much" and "for what reason" which is a completely different sort of thing.
--- Quote ---The object of this exercise, and communication with the hired help in Lincoln, is to argue and to point out the obvious so that a remedy may be found.
--- End quote ---
The problem, of course, is that "the obvious" isn't. You have yet to clearly articulate your logic regarding this situation, as you have contradicted yourself multiple times regarding rights. As such, it is unlikely that such an argument to the "hired help" will do anything useful---more likely, it will cause annoyance and bad feelings, which means that when we DO try to get something useful done, it will be more difficult.
As people have said (and you have ignored) the NE permit system is annoying, but occasionally useful. It currently is not onerous to deal with, and simplifies certain things. While it indeed is something we'd like to get rid of (or at the very least make free), it is not a priority.
And there are only so many things that people have time, resources, and leverage to deal with considering the large number of NE state senators who are NOT gun-friendly. As such, we pick our battles carefully, and we work on winning the important ones first.
People have said this multiple times. You have ignored it, and belittled people who have worked for years to get Nebraska where it is (which is considerably better than it was previously) when they said they didn't consider this a priority just because you think so.
I going to simply ignore the rest of what you wrote, and unless you actually start attempting to realize what people ARE trying to change, plus start to use actual logic in your discussion, I'm done with you and this topic.
I will say this, though:
People around here make a difference to gun laws in Nebraska. We've gotten a lot of things changed, and we aren't done yet.
We fight the important things first, because we can't fight for everything simultaneously. Our opinion of "the important things" apparently doesn't match yours, which is fine, you go ahead and work on what you want---but don't expect a whole lot of help from people who already have collectively decided what is the most important. (If you haven't noticed because you didn't actually read any of the background before diving into these forums with your own opinions, the NFOA actively pays attention to the laws and legislation, posts information and updates, discusses bills, and votes on how we will present ourselves and deal with the legislature.)
We found that unsurprisingly, one lone voice means nothing to politicians. Several thousand people united with facts and statistics on their side? Is something different. And so WE actually pay attention, make sure we know what we are doing, and we make a difference.
If you get the permit system changed all by yourself, kudos to you. If you instead get nowhere other than annoying a lot of people who we are trying to work with to get things done (which is much more likely, as any professional lobbyist will tell you), thanks a lot for making things worse and getting in the way.
Tulkas:
--- Quote from: jthhapkido on March 10, 2012, 12:05:04 PM ---Quote from: Tulkas on March 08, 2012, 01:12:37 PM
To which Tulkas replied:
Tulkas on March 03, 2012, 02:20:01 PMI see we're having fun with semantics this morning. ;)
No. It is the main point, and one that people argue. Matter of fact, you use it when it suits you. (And you ignore it when it doesn't fit your opinions.)
Either it is a fundamental right, or it isn't.
--- End quote ---
This business of trying to carry on a conversation in HTML is troublesome and awkward. I probably won't do it very much any more but making my thoughts clear to anyone who may be reading over our shoulders is important to me. You have apparently made up your mind to disagree with anything I post. So be it, I'm not trying to convince you of anything.
On with the show...
I suppose that "it" is the question of whether we're talking about rights or privileges. Amendment II protects a fundamental right: to keep and bear arms. The Amendment clearly says that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. I contend that the law under discussion infringes on that right. BTW the right is not of recent vintage but is rooted in the discovery that use of a stick could deal with that pesky wolf, or neighbor, better than bare hands could do.
--- Quote ---Questions you might ponder:
Is the Constitution the basic law of the land? What are the first ten Amendments called? Check http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution.html if you wish.
Thank you for the condescension, which unfortunately, helps me make my point. "Inborn rights."
Using the specific phrasing "Shall not be infringed."
--- End quote ---
No condescension was intended. It's surprising how many times the Constitution is referred to. When asked where the point may be found, there is either no response or it turns out that the person was mistaken. The link above was posted for your convenience.
I maintain that every person has an inborn right to protect himself and those he cares about. The right to one way of doing this is protected by Amendment II. Other inborn rights are listed in other Amendments, as well in other documents, the Declaration of Independence for instance.
--- Quote ---So, again I ask---can convicted felons and such have rights taken away? If so, then they aren't inborn rights, they are privileges given (and taken away) by a government.
--- End quote ---
<sigh> We've been over this before and it's starting to get boring. Yes, convicted felons may be prevented from exercising certain rights.
--- Quote ---Society, in the case of a convicted felon may prevent exercise of those rights. A felon usually loses the right to dwell where he pleases while he's in the slammer. He also loses rights to privacy and security in his possessions while inside and the right to possess firearms for a greater or lesser period of time after he is released.
So, they aren't rights. Got it.
--- End quote ---
No, you ain't got it but that's okay.
--- Quote ---Governments, usually wrongly, also prevent exercise of these inborn rights.
You are aware that the "government" is the one who also takes away the privileges of criminals? And that the logic used to take away the privileges of criminals is exactly the same as that used to limit your privileges?
--- End quote ---
But I'm not a criminal, unless questioning "authority" is a crime.
--- Quote ---You've now said "inborn rights"---and yet say that people can lose these rights (by being criminals). You can't have it both ways.
--- End quote ---
Sure I can. You seem to have difficulty seeing the obvious, which is a shame.
--- Quote ---I realize your followup is probably going to be some commentary on how you "only said that the exercise of that right was being prevented." However, if you can't exercise a right, then you don't have that right.
Whereupon, it isn't a right under our laws. It is a privilege given to you by those who make laws.
--- End quote ---
Okay, just for discussion, do you agree that a person has the right to reside wherever he chooses if he can afford the rent? What, then, of the criminal who resides in the slammer? Did he choose to live there? Can he change his residence if he wishes to? Think about it.
--- Quote ---slight snip, then:
I feel that, as an adult citizen who isn't a felon, I have an inborn right to purchase anything I can afford without begging permission from anyone, least of all a government employee.But "society" may restrict the exercise of these rights, as discussed above.I'm glad you posed that as a question since I am definitely not saying anything like that.
You do realize that doesn't make sense, right? First you say it is an inborn right. Then you say that exercise of that right can be prevented. Then you say that right means you don't need to beg permission. Then you say that the exercise of those rights may be restricted.
--- End quote ---
You sure managed to butcher that! I'll try to straighten it out for you:
1.) Any person has an inborn right to own anything he chooses to own, as long as owning it doesn't harm others.
2.) A person can lose rights by being convicted of a crime.
3.) I decline to beg permission to exercise a right. The law under discussion says that if I want to purchase a handgun in Nebraska I must apply for a certificate. I won't do that since I'm convinced that the law infringes on Amendment II.
4.) Governments often wrongly restrict rights, especially regarding firearms: Germany in the late 1920s; England and Australia from the 1950s until the present day; California, Chicago, Washington D.C., New York City today are examples.
--- Quote ---Sorry, you only get to pick one side. Because either it is a right, or it isn't. If it IS a right of all people, then when the people discuss the problem with their government, they have one type of argument. If it ISN'T a right of all people (in other words, it is something that the government can restrict) then it is another type of argument, because it is an argument about "how much" and "for what reason" which is a completely different sort of thing.
--- End quote ---
I don't know how to explain it more clearly than to say that in the USA certain rights are listed in and protected by the Bill of Rights, Amendments one through ten of the Constitution. Those rights can be lost by being convicted of certain crimes. Unfortunately there are no absolutes.
--- Quote ---The problem, of course, is that "the obvious" isn't. You have yet to clearly articulate your logic regarding this situation, as you have contradicted yourself multiple times regarding rights.
--- End quote ---
I suppose that you see what you want to see.
--- Quote ---As such, it is unlikely that such an argument to the "hired help" will do anything useful---more likely, it will cause annoyance and bad feelings, which means that when we DO try to get something useful done, it will be more difficult.
--- End quote ---
I refer to government employees as "hired help" to remind myself that they work for the citizens of the state/country. This is something that they, and the citizens at large, sometimes forget.
Don't worry, I won't mention NFOA in any of my correspondence with legislators or others. In the other thread I asked for opinion on if the law, 69-2404, violates Amendment II of the Constitution. A few people agree that it does but other things, like uniform signage and victim protection are more important. Okay, so be it. I'll do what I can.
--- Quote ---As people have said (and you have ignored) the NE permit system is annoying, but occasionally useful. It currently is not onerous to deal with, and simplifies certain things. While it indeed is something we'd like to get rid of (or at the very least make free), it is not a priority.
--- End quote ---
I read that and reviewed both threads. I've responded to everything that was on topic, but let's review:
"KY57" asked a question about Nebraska recognizing an out-of-state CCW license which was answered by "sfg". I didn't ignore him, I'm just not qualified to answer the question.
"DanClrk51" made some comments agreeing that the law in question is unconstitutional. I agree; should I post a "Me too" response?
There were several posts by "sparky" with clarification by "AAllen" about important things that are being worked on. I responded to these posts.
"David Hineline" posted that the BATF could issue a unique ID to expedite a NICS check. No reason for me to respond.
I responded to a post from "Dan W", who completely missed the point of my tweaking "AAllen" about "LB920 I hope is dead. I can not support a bill that would take away a persons rights without even a hearing."
If you find others I've "ignored", please post chapter and verse.
Lessee... If the NE permit system is only annoying, why would you want to get rid of it? Could it be that you resent paying for permission to do something that people in other states do as a matter of course?
--- Quote ---And there are only so many things that people have time, resources, and leverage to deal with considering the large number of NE state senators who are NOT gun-friendly. As such, we pick our battles carefully, and we work on winning the important ones first.
--- End quote ---
I understand that. We have different ideas of what is important. BTW are you speaking for yourself only or for the NFOA?
--- Quote ---People have said this multiple times. You have ignored it, and belittled people who have worked for years to get Nebraska where it is (which is considerably better than it was previously) when they said they didn't consider this a priority just because you think so.
--- End quote ---
You're wrong you know. I don't intentionally belittle people but I spend a lot of time trying to explain to those who won't see. That will come to a halt with this post. I will answer questions but I won't argue any more points.
--- Quote ---I going to simply ignore the rest of what you wrote, and unless you actually start attempting to realize what people ARE trying to change, plus start to use actual logic in your discussion, I'm done with you and this topic.
--- End quote ---
So am I. Go in peace.
T.
JimP:
--- Quote from: Dan W on March 03, 2012, 11:04:56 PM ---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
--- End quote ---
Here ya go, Dan.....
I remember it was summer of 2008 that this changed.....
--- Quote ---Nebraska - Persons convicted of a felony are automatically permitted to vote two years after completion of their sentence for all convictions except treason.
A Guide to Ex Felon Voting Rights in Nebraska (72KB) (as of July 31, 2008)
--- End quote ---
http://felonvoting.procon.org/sourcefiles/ne_brochure.pdf
Dan W:
Thanks Jim, I did not know that.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version