Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: Universal background check initiatives.

  1. #1
    Campaign Veteran MSG Laigaie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Philipsburg, Montana
    Posts
    3,137

    Universal background check initiatives.

    Bloomburg and a few of his very well off friends deluged the airways with "Gotta have more background checks" commercials. Bloomburg won in Washington State.

    My question is "How many other States had this initiative on the ballot and how many States allowed it to pass?"
    "Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the people's liberty teeth (and) keystone... the rifle and the pistol are equally indispensable... more than 99% of them by their silence indicate that they are in safe and sane hands. The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference .When firearms go, all goes, we need them every hour." -- George Washington

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    If people just started to build their own guns, then the BR chk would be moot...its never been recorded anywhere...who knows who made it? Its an element that they have to prove.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    Redmond
    Posts
    29
    Quote Originally Posted by MSG Laigaie View Post
    Bloomburg and a few of his very well off friends deluged the airways with "Gotta have more background checks" commercials. Bloomburg won in Washington State.

    My question is "How many other States had this initiative on the ballot and how many States allowed it to pass?"
    the initiative tatic is a new one for bloomberg. very clever, as it bypasses state legislatures and is totally immune from NRA lobbying power. all it requires is bundles of cash, which he has.

    there are 24 states which have initiative process, or something close to it. understand that clearly. about half the US is vulnerable to this tactic.

    without defusing the background check issue at the federal level, we will see a lot of state initiatives that there will not be enough pro-gun money to fight, and they will be likely to pass.


    i can only hope the NRA will leverage the newly red federal government and get some legislation through in our favor to shut this crap down and take the wind out of bloomberg's sails. the background check argument is not one that can be won, but you can at least write legislation with terms that are far less objectionable than the draconian bills like I-594 and the even worse bill NV will be facing.

    pick and choose which battles to fight. fight the battles you can win, the ones that lack widespread support - magazine limits, "AWB", mandatory storage/licensing/etc. for those you cannot win, set them up to be strategic losses.

    blow money on battles you CAN'T win, there will be less money left over to fight the battles you CAN win.
    Last edited by bani; 11-06-2014 at 05:55 AM.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Northwest Kent County, Michigan
    Posts
    757
    The constitutionality of background checks (universal or not) may have to be litigated in court on Second Amendment grounds via a completely different tactic.

    There is nothing that prevents a State acting as a plaintiff in challenging the Federal background check system under the Second Amendment (successfully doing so would doom all other state background check systems by the way). This wouldn't be a novel concept at all. The legal groundwork has already been provided courtesy of the antis themselves who argued (in desparation) that the Second Amendment was intended to protect a State's interest in preventing the Federal government from disarming State militias (i.e. a State, itself, would be the appropriate party to sue the Federal government to enforce the 2A). It should be noted that the Heller decision happened to be in agreement on that point, i.e. Scalia specifically noted that the militia clause was the most salient purpose of the Second Amendment before going further to explain that the amendment was not limited to that purpose, but also protected the ability of individual citizens to keep and bear arms for purposes of self-defense unconnected with militias.

    From a State’s vantage point, the Second Amendment was intended to ensure that a Governor could muster an army of citizen-soldiers in a damn hurry! The Federal background check requirement would block citizens from legally acquiring arms during a dire national emergency since it is highly probable that any ‘instant’ background check system would cease to function for a variety of reasons (i.e. the plug is intentionally pulled, the national electrical grid crashes, the system simply collapses from extreme demand, etc.).

    So far, 2A litigation has focused on whether or not some federal or state law violates an individual citizen's Second Amendment rights related to self-defense in peace time. That is fine and dandy however, future litigation should also focus on whether or not some federal law frustrates a State's interest in maintaining an appropriately armed citizenry from which a militia could be raised in the midst of war and disaster.

    Montana are you listening?

    Just my .02 cents (thinking outside the ever shrinking self-defense 2A box we have allowed ourselves to become comfortable inside).
    Last edited by OC4me; 11-06-2014 at 02:14 PM.

  5. #5
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Outstanding post, OC4me. Couple of points, though, not with you, but with some of the "common thought" going around the bench.

    Quote Originally Posted by OC4me View Post
    The constitutionality of background checks (universal or not) may have to be litigated in court on Second Amendment grounds via a completely different tactic.
    Agreed. I have in mind the original purpose as to why the Second Amendment was created.

    There is nothing that prevents a State acting as a plaintiff in challenging the Federal background check system under the Second Amendment (successfully doing so would doom all other state background check systems by the way). This wouldn't be a novel concept at all. The legal groundwork has already been provided courtesy of the antis themselves who argued (in desparation) that the Second Amendment was intended to protect a State's interest in preventing the Federal government from disarming State militias (i.e. a State, itself, would be the appropriate party to sue the Federal government to enforce the 2A).
    Maintaining the state militia is one reason. There are others.

    It should be noted that the Heller decision happened to be in agreement on that point, i.e. Scalia specifically noted that the militia clause was the most salient purpose of the Second Amendment before going further to explain that the amendment was not limited to that purpose, but also protected the ability of individual citizens to keep and bear arms for purposes of self-defense unconnected with militias.
    Smart man, Justice Scalia. Self-defense is reason 2.

    From a State’s vantage point, the Second Amendment was intended to ensure that a Governor could muster an army of citizen-soldiers in a damn hurry! The Federal background check requirement would block citizens from legally acquiring arms during a dire national emergency since it is highly probable that any ‘instant’ background check system would cease to function for a variety of reasons (i.e. the plug is intentionally pulled, the national electrical grid crashes, the system simply collapses from extreme demand, etc.).
    Back to reason one, but you have to understand that if a federal background check suddenly stopped working as a ruse to prevent any further sales of firearms, we'd still have more firearms in the hands of the people than we have people. Furthermore, there's nothing to prevent a governor from getting on the radio and announcing the background check was a ruse for control, and state will no longer be recognizing the validity of that federal law.

    So far, 2A litigation has focused on whether or not some federal or state law violates an individual citizen's Second Amendment rights related to self-defense in peace time. That is fine and dandy however, future litigation should also focus on whether or not some federal law frustrates a State's interest in maintaining an appropriately armed citizenry from which a militia could be raised in the midst of war and disaster.

    Montana are you listening?
    Still just the first two reasons. Are you ready for something really amazing?

    Just my .02 cents (thinking outside the ever shrinking self-defense 2A box we have allowed ourselves to become comfortable inside).
    Agreed. Now, here's where it gets interesting.

    When our Founding Fathers crafted the Second Amendment, they did so because they had assumed that no one would ever attempt to disarm the people. After all, we'd been armed since we first arrived. The crown was the only entity that had seriously attempted to disarm the people. Yet amazingly, forces within our own government attempted to collect arms from the people from the outset.

    Our Founders blinked, thought, "Perhaps we weren't clear enough," and enacted our Bill of Rights.

    Our Second Amendment's "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," they meant every word. "Shall not" is an imperative, a non-negotiable mandate. There is no wiggle room. The only way the courts have gotten around it is by ignoring it. Any and all forms of gun control, registration, waiting periods, and other restrictions are infringements.

    In fact, the reasons are limitless as to why our Founding Fathers created such an absolute mandate. Hunting. Sport. Competition. The Olympics. Pure fun. Self-defense. Defense against tyranny at all levels, and all types. Deterring enemy aggressing. Repelling invading armies.

    ALL are valid reasons, as is "just because."

    Our Founding Fathers had the depth of wisdom and keen insight to NOT put any restrictions on our right to keep and bear arms. Instead, they put the maximum restriction on any and all entities against infringing our right to keep and bear arms. They didn't limit to to Congress, as they did in the First Amendment. The restriction applies to everyone. NO ONE has the authority to infringe on our right to keep and bear arms. All are specifically and completely prohibited from infringing on our right to keep and bear arms. There are no bounds, and all such attempts violate the Constitution.

    Nor does the term "arms " apply only to firearms. It's short for "armaments," as in knives, swords, bow and arrow, axe, cannon, bludgeon, stick, rock, whatever.

    More than 200 years ago, our Founding Fathers had already foreseen the gun-free zones and other ridiculous attempts to make people "safer" and how they would actually endanger people. They foresaw because they were students of history. This is nothing new. It has happened many times before. Governments disarm citizens to "protect them." Even if their intentions were originally noble, disarming citizens has always made them targets, and noble intentions always become ignoble, even tyrannical.

    Our Founding Fathers knew this. In response they crafted a very simple moratorium: "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

    It really is that simple. The only thing complicated about this issue are the hooks the antis have thrown into the mix. All such hooks violate the intent and direct wording of the Constitution, and are therefore illegal.

    Thankfully, recent decisions by the Supreme Court and federal courts have mostly upheld these principles, much to the surprise of the antis. Clearly, Justice Scalia and others do understand a lot more about the importance of preserving the integrity of our Second Amendment than we generally would have imagined.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    Redmond
    Posts
    29
    Quote Originally Posted by since9 View Post
    Thankfully, recent decisions by the Supreme Court and federal courts have mostly upheld these principles, much to the surprise of the antis. Clearly, Justice Scalia and others do understand a lot more about the importance of preserving the integrity of our Second Amendment than we generally would have imagined.
    this is why maintaining a majority in the SCOTUS is so important.

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    What? The gov't is messing with a right and you want to go to the gov't for relief?

    Rights cannot be voted upon by the people, a legislative body, an executive body, or a judicial body.

    Rights can only be repressed by gov't bodies .. never expanded by them.

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    usa
    Posts
    691
    Smart man, Justice Scalia. Self-defense is reason 2.
    Smart man indeed, he put in the exact wording that can screw us all!

    Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. [United States v.] Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

    http://www.nationaljournal.com/polit...ntrol-20130119

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Slidell, Louisiana
    Posts
    2,464
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff. State View Post
    Smart man indeed, he put in the exact wording that can screw us all!

    Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. [United States v.] Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

    http://www.nationaljournal.com/polit...ntrol-20130119
    +1

    Scalia's intelligence level is irrelevant and his argument is a straw-man. The question is not whether a right is limited or not, it's whether the law in question is constitutional or not. Jeeeezzzz, the whole point of a constitution is to KEEP government officials from defining "rights".

    Simply put: This nation is a Constitutional Republic with governmental powers derrived from the constitution. Nothing in said document gives the government power to infringe on the right to keep and bear. Only the constitutional amendment process could change this. If any infingement is to become lawful, it would require the difficult amendment process and this process is made difficult for a reason. Someone of average intelligence can understand this which means Scalia is a willing particilpant to our ever growing tyrany.

    Working within the system, how do we get rid of a hundred years or more of twisted jurisprudence?

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,161
    Quote Originally Posted by georg jetson View Post
    +1 [ ... ] Working within the system, how do we get rid of a hundred years or more of twisted jurisprudence?
    Learn the truth not taught by a hundred years of twisted education. Read The Open Society and Its Enemies by Karl Popper, which starts with criticism of the translation of Plato's The Republic that gave us Hegel and Marx's dialectic that still curses us today. Popper demonstrates that our Constitution is unique of all constitutions in all of history in binding the tyrant.

    Read The Deliberate Dumbing Down ofAmerica by Charlotte Thomson Iserbyt, a chronological ana of policy papers that directed the twisting of our education.
    Last edited by Nightmare; 11-12-2014 at 11:46 AM.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Slidell, Louisiana
    Posts
    2,464
    Quote Originally Posted by Nightmare View Post
    Learn the truth not taught by a hundred years of twisted education. Read The Open Society and Its Enemies by Karl Popper, which starts with criticism of the translation of Plato's The Republic that gave us Hegel and Marx's dialectic that still curses us today. Popper demonstrates that our Constitution is unique of all constitutions in all of history in binding the tyrant.
    Thanks for the suggestion. Most of my reading over the last several years has been in law books and I do admit my knowledge of history is wanting.

    I agree with your "education" assessment. Now practically speaking, how do we change the direction of education in this country? I've been getting involved with my local school board recently and I'm horrified at the lack of control at the local level. It appears to me that the fed dept of education needs to be abolished, but that takes political will, which is influenced greatly by the level of education of the voting public. Chicken or egg...
    Last edited by georg jetson; 11-12-2014 at 11:51 AM.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,161
    My school district is the smallest in the state and rather remote from control by the educrats.

    Our science teacher is infamous for killing a chicken the old fashioned way for the class that had raised it from an egg/chick. Our English literature teacher is infamous for using the Bible as a text source.

    At our community Veterans Day observance yesterday, the entire student body, all 60 or so, participated.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •