Delayed after NICS check

imported post

All is right with the world again - my part of it anyway My new baby is now home safe and sound. I called the store and they said to come on down. They called NICS again while I was there, apparently nothing had changed, so I signed on the dotted line and headed on down the road. I have 450 rounds and some targets, only one more day until the weekend.

Feel free to continue your discussion of the WA constitution, I will be watching this very interesting forum. I don't know that I will be doing any open carry other than in the back country, but there's lots of other good WA oriented info here.

imported post

duallydave wrote:

All is right with the world again - my part of it anyway

My new baby is now home safe and sound. I called the store and they said to come on down. They called NICS again while I was there, apparently nothing had changed, so I signed on the dotted line and headed on down the road. I have 450 rounds and some targets, only one more day until the weekend.

Feel free to continue your discussion of the WA constitution, I will be watching this very interesting forum. I don't know that I will be doing any open carry other than in the back country, but there's lots of other good WA oriented info here.

Click to expand...

Glad you got your gun. Don't worry about delays. If you know you're clean, you'll be fine.

imported post

Bear 45/70 wrote:

All your CPL does is exempt you from Washington's 5 day waiting period, if the dealer wants too. Oh yeah, it lets you carry concealed too. Isn't that an infringement on your right to keep and bear arms?

Click to expand...

Not really, considering you don't need a license to carry openly in Washington. now if the law said you needed a license to carry, regardless of the manner in which you are carrying, then you'd have a case that your right to bear arms in defense of yourself (as codified in the state constitution) is being impaired.

And your rights under the 2nd Amendment and Article I, Section 24, strictly speaking, cover the keeping and bearing of arms; they don't say anything about the acquiring of firearms. Obviously, it logically follows that if have the right to keep firearms, you have the right acquire them, but my point is that there's nothing in either constitution to prohibit the government from imposing a delay in acquiring them.

And I do have to side with heresolong in conceding that rights are, indeed, not absolute. That is, I think it's acceptable, for instance, to impose a legal restriction that prohibits someone from owning firearms when that person has demonstrated a tendency in the past to use firearms for unlawful purposes (such as armed robbery, assault, and/or homicide). So if we take it as read for the moment (I'll allow that you might disagree on this point, Bear, but bear with me, no pun intended) that it's acceptable to prohibit people who have been convicted of a violent felony offense to own firearms, we've established that a limit even on constitutional rights. The question then remains where that limit lies.

imported post

Euromutt wrote:

Bear 45/70 wrote:

All your CPL does is exempt you from Washington's 5 day waiting period, if the dealer wants too. Oh yeah, it lets you carry concealed too. Isn't that an infringement on your right to keep and bear arms?

Click to expand...

Not really, considering you don't need a license to carry openly in Washington. now if the law said you needed a license to carry, regardless of the manner in which you are carrying, then you'd have a case that your right to bear arms in defense of yourself (as codified in the state constitution) is being impaired.

...

Click to expand...

I don't remember where either the federal or state constitutions mentioned that the right to keep and bear arms only applies when the arms are visible. Maybe I missed something...

imported post

Euromutt wrote:

Bear 45/70 wrote:

All your CPL does is exempt you from Washington's 5 day waiting period, if the dealer wants too. Oh yeah, it lets you carry concealed too. Isn't that an infringement on your right to keep and bear arms?

Click to expand...

Not really, considering you don't need a license to carry openly in Washington. now if the law said you needed a license to carry, regardless of the manner in which you are carrying, then you'd have a case that your right to bear arms in defense of yourself (as codified in the state constitution) is being impaired.

And your rights under the 2nd Amendment and Article I, Section 24, strictly speaking, cover the keeping and bearing of arms; they don't say anything about the acquiring of firearms. Obviously, it logically follows that if have the right to keep firearms, you have the right acquire them, but my point is that there's nothing in either constitution to prohibit the government from imposing a delay in acquiring them.

And I do have to side with heresolong in conceding that rights are, indeed, not absolute. That is, I think it's acceptable, for instance, to impose a legal restriction that prohibits someone from owning firearms when that person has demonstrated a tendency in the past to use firearms for unlawful purposes (such as armed robbery, assault, and/or homicide). So if we take it as read for the moment (I'll allow that you might disagree on this point, Bear, but bear with me, no pun intended) that it's acceptable to prohibit people who have been convicted of a violent felony offense to own firearms, we've established that a limit even on constitutional rights. The question then remains where that limit lies.

Click to expand...

You're one of those guys that can find a reason to justify whatever the a$$holes in government do. The right to keep and bear arms covers the right to aquire or else how the hell would you be able to keep them?

imported post

Personally I would argue, that convicted felons who have presumably paid their debt to society should have no other restrictions placed on them after they are released...

At any rate I also hold that natural rights are absolute. The Constitution is not government limiting The People, but rather The People limiting government.

Resonable restrictions are the stuff that greases the slippery slope... Responsibility for actions, not restrictions on rights are the way to ensure safety of all...

imported post

sean-1286 wrote:

I don't remember where either the federal or state constitutions mentioned that the right to keep and bear arms only applies when the arms are visible. Maybe I missed something...

Click to expand...

They don't say either way, do they? It can therefore be argued that as long as a way exists for you to bear arms in your own defense without requiring some piece of paper from the government, your right to do so is not being impaired/infringed, even if not every method of carry is thus unrestricted. Thus, the government could impose a permit system for concealed carry, provided it didn't impede open carry in similar fashion; or vice-versa.

What would be unacceptable is if the government instituted some sort of impediment on every method of carry, such as we see in California, for instance, where open carry is restricted in incorporated territories, but permits are required for concealed carry (and those are damn hard to acquire).

imported post

Euromutt wrote:

sean-1286 wrote:

I don't remember where either the federal or state constitutions mentioned that the right to keep and bear arms only applies when the arms are visible. Maybe I missed something...

Click to expand...

They don't say either way, do they? It can therefore be argued that as long as a way exists for you to bear arms in your own defense without requiring some piece of paper from the government, your right to do so is not being impaired/infringed, even if not every method of carry is thus unrestricted. Thus, the government could impose a permit system for concealed carry, provided it didn't impede open carry in similar fashion; or vice-versa.

What would be unacceptable is if the government instituted some sort of impediment on every method of carry, such as we see in California, for instance, where open carry is restricted in incorporated territories, but permits are required for concealed carry (and those are damn hard to acquire).

Click to expand...

What part of "shall not be infringed"don't you understand? No infringement means NADA, NOTHING, NO HOW can imped you in anyway. Not just level you one avenue. Crap are you a lawyer or a troll or both?

imported post

Bear 45/70 wrote:

What part of "shall not be infringed"don't you understand? No infringement means NADA, NOTHING, NO HOW can imped you in anyway. Not just level you one avenue. Crap are you a lawyer or a troll or both?

Click to expand...

Do you actually bother to read what other people write and think about it, or do you just go into full offensive mode as soon as you spot the slightest thing that doesn't entirely jibe with your view of the way the world should work? This is a discussion board, mac; that implies there's some room for respectful disagreement, the operative word here being "respectful." Accusing everyone who doesn't agree with you 100% of being a troll is not the way to make friends and influence people. You're not doing a thing to persuade me your point of view is correct; the only thing you're persuading me of (and I don't appear to be alone in this) is that you're a dick.

imported post

Euromutt wrote:

Bear 45/70 wrote:

What part of "shall not be infringed"don't you understand? No infringement means NADA, NOTHING, NO HOW can imped you in anyway. Not just level you one avenue. Crap are you a lawyer or a troll or both?

Click to expand...

Do you actually bother to read what other people write and think about it, or do you just go into full offensive mode as soon as you spot the slightest thing that doesn't entirely jibe with your view of the way the world should work? This is a discussion board, mac; that implies there's some room for respectful disagreement, the operative word here being "respectful." Accusing everyone who doesn't agree with you 100% of being a troll is not the way to make friends and influence people. You're not doing a thing to persuade me your point of view is correct; the only thing you're persuading me of (and I don't appear to be alone in this) is that you're a dick.

Click to expand...

What I read is you are just fine with the governmentdoing as it damned well pleases whether they are violating the Constitution or the law. And where I come from that makes you the enemy.

imported post

duallydave wrote:

Wow - quick replies! Yes I did put my SSN on the form, so I guess that would mean that they should not mistake me for somebody else with the same name.

Click to expand...

I wish people would stop providing SSN - it;s optional - I think it just leads to false positives as criminals may have used your SSN and sullied it.

imported post

sv_libertarian wrote:

Personally I would argue, that convicted felons who have presumably paid their debt to society should have no other restrictions placed on them after they are released...

Click to expand...

Actually, I can see your point. The criminal justice system is, after all, predicated on the notion that an offender does pay off his "debt to society" by undergoing whatever punishment he is sentenced to. I actually object to sex offender registries for this very reason, namely that they constitute a continued punishment of the offender after he has notionally already paid off his debt.

But okay, leaving aside ex-cons, how about offenders out on parole? How about those still incarcerated? How about defendants who have skipped bail? People with outstanding warrants for violent felonies? Is the right of all these people to keep (and, by extension, acquire) and bear arms inviolable?

imported post

As with any other gun law, do you really think a law that does not allow someone to own/carry a gun keeps them from doing so? How many crimes are committed with a gun by previously convicted felons? Lots! Do the present laws prevent them from carrying weapons? As they approach a previously convicted felon, doJohnny Law or Morris say, "Phew! At least we know this guy isn't carrying a gun!" Of course not.

All gun laws are ineffective.

imported post

Euromutt, I would say that someone incarcerated has forfitted their rights while behind bars. Dunno about parole, that is a sort of "in between state" but I would generally say that if someone is released back into society then they should enjoy the rights and privileges of being back in that society. Someone who is a fugitive has already forfeited their rights IMHO.

imported post

Ajetpilot wrote:

SNIP As they approach a previously convicted felon, doJohnny Law or Morris say, "Phew! At least we know this guy isn't carrying a gun!" Of course not.

Click to expand...

Great point.

imported post

Bear 45/70 wrote:

What I read is you are just fine with the governmentdoing as it damned well pleases whether they are violating the Constitution or the law. And where I come from that makes you the enemy.

Click to expand...

What you choose to read is not necessarily the same as what you actually read. Sure, I think the limits of legitimate government power are rather wider than you think they are. But at no point have I said there are no limits at all; that's how you have chosen to interpret my words. And, I might add, you are incorrect in doing so. I'm a a naturalized immigrant, and believe me, I'm a damn sight happier living here, in the western United States, than I was living in western Europe.

But hey, if you want to tell people who don't agree with you 100% that you consider them to be "the enemy," that's your prerogative. But understand that when you tell people that you regard them as your enemy, you are engaging in a self-fulfilling prophecy. When you tell someone that they're your enemy, and treat them as such, it's only natural that they'll respond in kind. Keep it up long enough, and you'll have turned damn near the whole world against you.

So for what it's worth, you may think I'm your enemy, but for the time being, I will not reciprocate; to me, you're simply someone with whom I disagree on certain issues. We're both American citizens, we both support private ownership of firearms, a representative republican form of government, and (I hope) the notion that my freedom to throw a punch ends where your nose begins and vice-versa. On a global scale, I'd say there's more that unites us than separates us.

imported post

Euromutt wrote:

Bear 45/70 wrote:

What I read is you are just fine with the governmentdoing as it damned well pleases whether they are violating the Constitution or the law. And where I come from that makes you the enemy.

Click to expand...

What you choose to read is not necessarily the same as what you actually read. Sure, I think the limits of legitimate government power are rather wider than you think they are. But at no point have I said there are no limits at all; that's how you have chosen to interpret my words. And, I might add, you are incorrect in doing so. I'm a a naturalized immigrant, and believe me, I'm a damn sight happier living here, in the western United States, than I was living in western Europe.

But hey, if you want to tell people who don't agree with you 100% that you consider them to be "the enemy," that's your prerogative. But understand that when you tell people that you regard them as your enemy, you are engaging in a self-fulfilling prophecy. When you tell someone that they're your enemy, and treat them as such, it's only natural that they'll respond in kind. Keep it up long enough, and you'll have turned damn near the whole world against you.

So for what it's worth, you may think I'm your enemy, but for the time being, I will not reciprocate; to me, you're simply someone with whom I disagree on certain issues. We're both American citizens, we both support private ownership of firearms, a representative republican form of government, and (I hope) the notion that my freedom to throw a punch ends where your nose begins and vice-versa. On a global scale, I'd say there's more that unites us than separates us.

Click to expand...

You probably don't realize that the present US government is more restrictive of and taxes moreit's citizens then the English Crown was, of the citizens of this country back in the 1700's. They fought a war to be rid of it. To me any tolerance of our over reaching government is unacceptable. It's like the 2nd Amendment, it says "shall not be infringed", how can you or anyonefind anyway to put any limits, reasonable or otherwise (what the hell is "reasonable" in the first place but an excuse to do something they are not suppose to)on the 2nd with that written in there? The government has proven time and again they can't be trusted.

imported post

sv_libertarian wrote:

Euromutt, I would say that someone incarcerated has forfitted their rights while behind bars. Dunno about parole, that is a sort of "in between state" but I would generally say that if someone is released back into society then they should enjoy the rights and privileges of being back in that society. Someone who is a fugitive has already forfeited their rights IMHO.

Click to expand...

Well, I think we can find ourselves broadly in agreement on the nitty-gritty. But the more general point I'm trying to get at here is that any right that can, even in highly specific circumstances, legitimately be restricted, is therefore not absolute.

Ajetpilot wrote:

As with any other gun law, do you really think a law that does not allow someone to own/carry a gun keeps them from doing so? [...]

All gun laws are ineffective.

Click to expand...

You're right in the sense that no gun law has ever managed to prevent every (would-be) offender from ever acquiring a firearm. There is evidence, however, that certain gun laws can and have made it more difficult for offenders to acquire firearms. The problem being that laws that actually succeed in making it more difficult for offenders to acquire firearms also have the tendency to hamper law-abiding citizens more than they do the offenders (of course, types like the Bradies and VPC consider this a feature, not a bug). For example, a study from 2005 ("Underground Gun Markets" by Philip Cook et al., published by the Terry Sanford Institute of Public Policy at Duke University) indicates that the black market for handguns in Chicago is "thin"; it is quite difficult in practice for criminal elements in Chicago to acquire firearms in general, and handguns in particular. But it is far from impossible, whereas it is impossible for a law-abiding citizen to acquire a firearm suitable for self-protection, so I'd say the net benefit to public safety resulting from Chicago's ordinances is a negative one (which makes it a bad law, even if it weren't blatantly unconstitutional, which it is).

But is there really a constitutional problem with conducting a background check on a prospective firearm purchaser to ensure that said individual is not currently a fugitive from justice (be it someone with an outstanding warrant for his arrest, someone who skipped jail, or an escaped convict)? Provided, that is, that the background check does not impose an undue delay on the acquisition of the firearm by someone who is not legally ineligible to possess a firearm. Sure, such a measure won't make it impossible for a fugitive to acquire a firearm, but it will make it significantly more difficult; at least the fugitive won't be able to just walk into a gun store and buy whatever he wants. Also, even in instances where the system fails, it provides a certain measure of liability coverage for the FFL holder, because the dealer can point to the fact he had the background check carried out as evidence of a good faith effort on his part to ascertain that he wasn't selling the weapon to someone who was likely to use it to commit an unlawful act. That in turn will make it more difficult for the antis to try to sue FFLs out of business, and that can only be a good thing.