General Discussion

Alva Goldbook

(149 posts)

84. No, I didn't!

Fri Apr 26, 2013, 06:25 PM

Apr 2013

Up until now, you were claiming that a federal gun registry would violate the commerce clause

No I didn't! I said a federal gun registry violates the 4th amendment. I said that Congress making a law regulating private sales would violate the commerce clause.

As far as the commerce clause, NFA proves that the federal government is within its rights to regulate private in-state transfers.

You have yet to prove that the NFA regulates any private in state transfers. Furthermore, you have yet to demonstrate how the NFA would apply to arms not covered by the NFA.

Now you're changing your story and claiming it violates the second amendment. This is also false, because registering guns does not prevent people from owning them.

No, I said it violates the 4th amendment.

since states are bound by 2A also, then obviously these prove that gun registries are not a violation of 2A.

No, it just means the Supreme Court has not ruled on this yet. I'll remind you that D.C. used gun registries to ban the ownership of guns by everyone, and the Heller decision overturned that.

Remember, even your buddy Scalia has conceded that there are limits on 2A.

Scalia is not my buddy, but he made it clear what the limits on the 2nd amendment are. Long standing prohibitions against "unusual or dangerous" weapons can be regulated, like sawed off shot guns and full auto rifles. Long standing prohibitions against allowing guns in gov't buildings and airports is okay. But that was about it. Read the Heller decision!

I'm saying that private gun sales have a substantial effect on gun trafficking, which is enough to justify regulation at the federal level.

What percentage of private gun sales do you think are used in gun trafficking?

Yeah, the fourth amendment says you can't be searched without probably cause. That has absolutely nothing to do with a registry.

Does a registry allow gov't to know what property you own?

Again, since NFA is a registry, if the 4th amendment prevented registries, then NFA would be unconstitutional.

You have yet to demonstrate that the NFA is a registry. And even if it did, why would a registry that applies to the NFA apply to guns not covered by the NFA?

This is all mute, since the federal registration of guns not covered by the NFA is already illegal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_Owners_Protection_Act#Registry_prohibition

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

92 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

The problem gun reformers face [View all] ProSense Apr 2013 OP

The bottom line is that pipoman Apr 2013 #1

No, that's not the "bottom line" ProSense Apr 2013 #2

Another false NRA talking point. They just keep flowing... DanTex Apr 2013 #3

"talking point" "talking point" pipoman Apr 2013 #4

Maybe look into why nobody with a clue about constitutional law has even hinted that DanTex Apr 2013 #5

Dan, are you not aware of the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution? Alva Goldbook Apr 2013 #9

Are you not aware of the NFA, which requires intra-state sales between private citizens to be DanTex Apr 2013 #17

Would you quit scaring billh58 Apr 2013 #23

Dan, intra-state sales between private citizens already gets a background check. Alva Goldbook Apr 2013 #41

Intra-state means within the same state. DanTex Apr 2013 #44

What provision of the NFA governs sales within the same state? Alva Goldbook Apr 2013 #49

If you sell an NFA gun to someone within the same state, you need to transfer the registration. DanTex Apr 2013 #56

Dan, I'll ask again. Alva Goldbook Apr 2013 #60

So are you saying I'm wrong? That's a serious question. DanTex Apr 2013 #64

Dan, all I'm asking you to do is prove your claim. Alva Goldbook Apr 2013 #73

I'm not sure what you are trying to argue here. DanTex Apr 2013 #74

Ain't it tough splainin to folks who can't get their "nomenclature" correct. Hoyt Apr 2013 #53

Hoyt, I dont' actually know the difference between a magazine and a clip. Alva Goldbook Apr 2013 #55

Guns are far from "progressive." Hoyt Apr 2013 #68

You don't think that the right of self-defense is a progressive value? Alva Goldbook Apr 2013 #71

The right of self-defense and the right to own a gun are different things. DanTex Apr 2013 #72

I don't recall seeing a Constitutional Amendment that guarantees you to be free from gun violence. Alva Goldbook Apr 2013 #75

The constitution also doesn't say anything about self-defense either. DanTex Apr 2013 #76

Are you a 100 pound woman? Typical gun cultist BS. Hoyt Apr 2013 #80

Instead of insulting me, why don't you address the point I raised? Alva Goldbook Apr 2013 #81

I could put a bunch of photos of shot kids, give us a break and stop promoting more guns. Hoyt Apr 2013 #87

And the weapons restricted under NFA pipoman Apr 2013 #54

Whether guns are in common use or not has nothing to do with commerce clause or states' rights. DanTex Apr 2013 #58

It has everything to do with NFA registry... pipoman Apr 2013 #61

The "NFA Registry" is not part of the constitution. DanTex Apr 2013 #65

Dan, so basically what you're saying is that because the Fed regulates machines guns one way... Alva Goldbook Apr 2013 #78

Constitutionally, yes. DanTex Apr 2013 #79

Dan, let's get real here. Alva Goldbook Apr 2013 #82

You are confusing the commerce clause and the second amendment. DanTex Apr 2013 #83

No, I didn't! Alva Goldbook Apr 2013 #84

OK, I think this is where I hop off the crazy train. DanTex Apr 2013 #85

No, all I'm asking is that you prove your claim. Alva Goldbook Apr 2013 #90

The ONLY reason that the NFA pipoman Apr 2013 #88

About the constitutional scholar thing. DanTex Apr 2013 #47

So then why didn't it happen praytell? pipoman Apr 2013 #57

Umm, because there weren't enough votes in the senate. DanTex Apr 2013 #59

How do we explain the several Democrats who didn't vote for it? pipoman Apr 2013 #62

They are right-wing Dems like Max Baucus. DanTex Apr 2013 #67

Now, let's be specific: NRAtalkingPoint™ No. 20358 Eleanors38 Apr 2013 #6

In other words, nobody with a clue has any doubts about the constitutionality. DanTex Apr 2013 #7

So the ACLU has gone over to the Dark Side? Eleanors38 Apr 2013 #8

The ACLU didn't say it was unconstitutional. DanTex Apr 2013 #13

Dan, a national gun registry is prohibited by law. Alva Goldbook Apr 2013 #10

Wow, you guys don't even know about NFA! Fascinating! DanTex Apr 2013 #12

Yes, I am aware of it... Alva Goldbook Apr 2013 #43

That wouldn't affect the commerce clause or the Federal Government's jurisdiction. DanTex Apr 2013 #45

No, it would. Alva Goldbook Apr 2013 #51

Miller was a second amendment case. The "unusualness" matters to the second amendment, DanTex Apr 2013 #52

Where is this registry? former9thward Apr 2013 #11

LOL. So not only do you not know what a "Harvard Study" is, you also don't know about the NFA. DanTex Apr 2013 #14

I thought the NFA was a registry for certain firearms, like machine guns, premium Apr 2013 #15

I didn't say "all firearms". But the NFA is most definitely a national gun registry. DanTex Apr 2013 #16

Thanks for the reply. premium Apr 2013 #18

Of course, not of all firearms. DanTex Apr 2013 #21

I tend to agree with you, premium Apr 2013 #22

You never know what Scalia and Co are going to do, but DanTex Apr 2013 #25

Except there is no way to register existing guns using the NFA model hack89 Apr 2013 #39

NFA 1934 umt9 Apr 2013 #35

Thanks. premium Apr 2013 #42

Has it never ever prevented 1 criminal? Poor logic. Since one is able to get an illegal weapon.... uppityperson Apr 2013 #46

Re-read my post umt9 May 2013 #92

LOL. former9thward Apr 2013 #19

The percentages don't affect the constitutionality question. DanTex Apr 2013 #20

I am still waiting for you to disprove one fact presented in that study. former9thward Apr 2013 #30

Amazing, you're still standing by it! Even after it was shown to you that it is right-wing DanTex Apr 2013 #31

Wow a typo! former9thward Apr 2013 #32

LOL. Using false data is not a "typo". DanTex Apr 2013 #33

That dog don't hunt any more. upaloopa Apr 2013 #26

It only takes one person to challenge and you can bet on that person being out there somewhere.. pipoman Apr 2013 #63

It also takes money and a court willing to hear it upaloopa Apr 2013 #77

The money will be there through lobbying groups like NRA pipoman Apr 2013 #89

No it isn't Progressive dog Apr 2013 #66

thye unsolvable problem actually is : we already have 200 million guns librechik Apr 2013 #24

Your last few words billh58 Apr 2013 #28

Yep. Zoeisright Apr 2013 #69

From the article... rrneck Apr 2013 #27

So the GOP is counting on the ignorance of the American people. DanTex Apr 2013 #29

Nothing but falsehoods. former9thward Apr 2013 #34

Uh huh. "There's no loophole". Where have we heard that talking point before? DanTex Apr 2013 #36

Why did you post falsehoods? former9thward Apr 2013 #37

I think everyone outside the NRA bubble understands that you are the one posting falsehoods. DanTex Apr 2013 #38

a "friendly top"? former9thward Apr 2013 #40

"Loophole" pipoman Apr 2013 #91

Yes. rrneck Apr 2013 #48

Maybe their problem is the outright contempt that they have for millions of Democrats and AnotherMcIntosh Apr 2013 #50

Speaking of NRA propaganda billh58 Apr 2013 #70

The problem they face: Goobers rustydog Apr 2013 #86