If your grandfather gives you his car he has to do a title transfer. It doesn’t infringe on your rights to have to do that. It might be a good thing to title all guns, just like cars, so there is a record of ownership.
Where are cars specifically mentioned in the Constitution?
How does requiring a title infringe on the right to ownership?
To answer your question, if Thomas Jefferson had owned a Lexus they would have been.
And by posing that question, I’m not intending to deflect. There are considerable due process justifications for the titling and registration of cars - cars are taxable property in most states, certainly at the time of purchase and in many as a part of the property tax. And the environmental emissions and safety inspection processes require that a car be traceable to its owner.
These arguments might seem to some to be parallel with the gun argument, but they really aren’t. I own an unsafe gun, in theory. In reality is is as safe as can be because it is never loaded or fired, since it is about 140 years old. And the perpetrators of much gun violence aren’t firing unsafe guns - they are behaving as criminals. We should react to them much as we would to a drunk driver who gets into a perfectly sound car with all inspections and maintenance up to date.
And firearms aren’t currently taxed as cars are - there is sales tax at the point of purchase and that’s about it.
So I don’t see a parallel across the board - and trying to shoehorn one in might create a constitutional issue.
By creating a de facto gun registry that can be used to restrict and confiscate arms in the future.
Only if your intention is to tax guns, or take them at a later date.
So I’m at work, at the deli downstairs, eating my tuna sandwich (it being Friday). And I overhear a guy at the next table talking about going hunting. So I butt into the conversation, because I’ve got a Winchester Model 94 I’m looking to sell, and I ask if he’s ever used a Model 94, He says his dad taught him to shoot with one, and he’d love to find one now. I offer to sell him mine.
Under the proposed law closing “loopholes,” must I do a background check?
According to the McCain bill, looks like it. This is, in fact, exactly the same situation as led to my Mossberg’s purchase. Guy’s father had died about 20 years ago, brand new gun used twice, my dad was talking about his new hobby… “Hey, I’ve got a spare, you want it?”
(I like using that gun as an example, because every circumstance about it is pretty much the opposite of what most gun control advocates feel.)
I understand the argument that there shouldn’t be any restrictions on gun sales. But it’s difficult to see the logic that a law that exists should only apply to some people.
Suppose it was a bunch of teenagers saying they were planning a big party this weekend and were looking for “refreshments”. Would it be okay for you to butt in and say that you had a case of Jack Daniels in your trunk and ask them if they want to buy it?
Uh huh. I don’t see that as an apt comparison - as underage drinking is a crime and facilitating such is the crime of contributing to the delinquency of a minor.
Owning a firearm is lawful - indeed a constitutionally protected right.
Let’s not kid ourselves. People can talk about selling an old gun to a neighbour or their grandpa handing down the family heirloom. But that’s not the problem we’re talking about.
What we’re talking about is some guy that wants to buy ten 9mms so he and his associates can conduct a “financial transaction” at a local bank. So he goes to a gun dealer and explains that unfortunately his past history of youthful indiscretions would cause unwanted attention to him if he were to purchase these guns in a manner that required a background check. In fact if it were known that he and his associates were buying guns, the police might take notice and monitor his activities in a way that would make it difficult for him to complete his planned business. Besides a purchase would leave a record of ownership that might lead the police to inquire about his activities at some future point if those firearms should coincidentally turn up at the scene of a crime.
The gun dealer says that while he has no reason to believe that the buyer wants to buy these guns for any purpose other than lawful self-defense, he completely understand how as a matter of staunch libertarian principles the buyer might want to buy these guns in a manner where his ownership of them is unknown to the police. But tragically his hands are tied - he is required by law to run a background check on all customers to check the unlikely possibility that they may have used a gun during the commission of a felony in the past. But happily, there’s a way to avoid that burden. By an amazing coincidence, the gun dealer also runs sales out of the back of his truck where he sells firearms to people who, for reasons that are none of the dealer’s business, want to avoid any paperwork. If the buyer wants to meet dealer in the parking lot out behind Burger King, he’ll sell him the guns he wants for cash with no record of the sale.
Saying something is illegal because it’s against the law is a circular argument. If a law was passed saying the private gun sales required background checks, then doing that would be a crime just like underage drinking is.
Ownership’s not an issue. The Constitution says you have the right to own a gun or purchase a gun or carry a gun. Where does it say you have the right to keep it a secret?
I’m not targeting the people who own guns for lawful purposes. But some people buy guns in order to commit crimes with those guns. So the public should be able to know who owns what guns so that when a particular gun is used in a crime we can determine who owned it. And we should know people who have a history of buying guns and then using those guns to commiting crimes, so that we have a heads-up when they buy more guns.
And what the Firearms salesmen did is a felony.
You’re made up scenario is false scenario, where the dealer is already breaking a law, and I’m pretty sure you know it. You’ve made up this scenario in order to paint an ugly picture. One which is already illegal.
It’s a pretty perfect comparison.
It’s a crime to sell a gun to someone who is unable to legally own a gun (say, because he’s a convicted felon, and state law prohibits felons from owning firearms)–and it is also illegal for the felon to buy a gun while legally forbidden to do so.
That is an exact analogy to underage drinking–wheres it’s illegal to sell alcohol to someone who cannot legally buy alcohol (say, because they are 17, and the drinking age is 21), and it is a crime for the minor to purchase alcohol.
To make the analogy even closer, a state might only require liquor stores to check ID–but it would still be illegal for me to sell it to a 17-year-old whether or not I was legally required to check his ID first. (it’d just be a very good idea for me to do so, to avoid breaking the law).
On the constitutional question, the Heller decision EXPLICITLY stated that statutes barring gun ownership by felons (among other “traditional restrictions”) were constitutionally valid.
Here is the scenario that was presented:
That is illegal.
A perfect comparison would be if I knew that the meth head down the street was a convicted felon, but I heard he was looking for a gun. Would it be ok if I stopped by with a .22 pistol and ask him if he was interested?
The answer of course is no.
Right. You guys do realize, don’t you, that background check or no that this activity is already illegal, right? That even if you are a private citizen, if you know somebody is that “meth head” in the example, you can’t legally sell them a gun?
Every state has some version of this law in Virginia’s code - I’m quoting it as a representative example of the type:
So again, the presented analogy doesn’t hold. It doesn’t compare apples to oranges - it compares them to cannonballs.
See, the issue is that people think simply because you’re not required to run an NCIS background check for private sales, that they’re entirely unrestricted. This is not the case.
You’re still legally barred from selling / transferring firearms to a person who you believe (or, in most states, suspect or have reason to suspect) are banned the right to own them.
Little Nemo’s scenario would be more appropriate if the gun salesman with the license said, "Look, I can’t legally sell a gun to you. But, my brother buys a lot of guns from me. He goes to gun shows and sells some of these guns. His name is . . . There is a gun show in . . . on Saturday. Go to his booth. Tell him I sent you. You can probably get what you want from him. In fact, tell me what you want and I’ll be sure he has it.
That scenario is more likely and adequately skirts the law.
They all should be in jail but how are you going to convict?
Now, tell me that stuff like that doesn’t happen.
No, no, it doesn’t.
Under a variety of Federal (and probably State) laws they’ve broken.
Sadly, it does happen. And in scenario’s like this one, more laws won’t prevent it from happening.
As I said earlier (maybe in this thread, maybe in another one), many gun shows won’t allow you to rent a booth to sell firearms if you do not have a Federal Firearms License – this has become increasingly common practice since '04. You can rent a booth to sell ammunition, accessories, knives, even books (Yes, people who shoot firearms are literate… :p) or jewelry or pictures, but not firearms without an FFL.