SelfDefense

I disagree with this. The States can, at their discretion, implement background checks. Further, the states can enter into agreements to fulfill mutual expedience, with the consent of Congress.

There is no provision for a Federal background check, however. Many think that if the Federal government does not have the power to implement restrictions then the States do not have the power either. That is an incorrect interpretation of the goals and principles of the Founders.


Edited to add:

Actually, the Federal government CAN institute background checks under the clause providing the power of Congress to discipline the militia. So, no, background checks are not uncnstitutional.

BAC

Ah, I should have specified federal background checks, because that's what I meant. Agreed otherwise on most parts...

'Cept this one. How do you figure? Congress (part of the federal government) cannot infringe upon the rights of Americans to keep and bear arms. No exception is made to that. Background checks are not related to disciplining the militia.


-B

tbrenke

I have to dis agree with you on this statment.
In a video that I watched, the old lady did not initiate force.
she had in her hand her handgun, she did not have it by the grip and was no where near the trigger. one of the LEO's tackled her, thn they packed her away in handcuffs with a broken coler bone. unless your stating he refusal to give them the gun was her "initiation of force".

SelfDefense

But you just wrote the following:

I think background checks can legitimately be considered part of the discipline of the militia. Discipline does not always mean punishment for wrongdoing. Discipline means imposing order and control. Background checks clearly impose order by preventing criminals and felons from legally acquiring firearms.

BAC

Alright, I see where you're going now. I can agree with that, too.

Are we preventing felons (once criminals are convicted; I don't believe in infringing rights until they've been judged as guilty of a crime) from being a part of the militia, too? The militia clause doesn't differentiate between those with or those without records... unless, of course, it's one more facet of US citizenship they're denied by being felons, but that's conjecture on my part and not stated anywhere in law.

I can admit the NICS has a legitimate role, then, but god it needs to be reworked into something both accurate and fair (those who bounce back as false positives ought not to require legal action to correct that mistake, which smacks of guilty-until-proven-innocent).


-B

SelfDefense

The intent is not really the concern here, though I would not trust someone who has already violated our society to serve the nation for which he has shown disdain. My point was that I think Congress (and, of course, the states) have every power to institute background checks. And, unlike LongRider's opinion, I think they most defintiely help prevent criminal access and have actually been the cause of arresting criminals.

Absolutely. I do not know the details of the investigations (I passed in five minutes.) but it needs to be fast, accurate and have an appeals process to correct mistakes.

OPFOR

As convicted felons may not own firearms (in most cases), it would be difficult for them to fill a valuable role in the militia as I (and I believe the founders) understand it.

__________________
"It makes no difference what men think of war, said the judge. War endures. As well ask men what they think of stone. War was always here. Before man was, war waited for him. The ultimate trade awaiting its ultimate practitioner. That is the way it was and will be. That way and not some other way."