US Senator Coburn (R-OK) Introduces Gun Control of His Own (not kidding!!!)

[Dave70968]

It would most likely begin as voluntary, to gain acceptance, then later it would become mandatory, and would be unenforceable without registration just like Universal Background Checks.

I can see a lot of people that would not accept UBCs saying this is "reasonable", but it could easily end up causing the same effect.

This, and it could easily become "mandatory" without any further legislation.

"Negligence," as a tort, is the failure to exercise ordinary care, with resultant harm. If NICS (or similar) is readily available to everybody, and people start using it, then the person who doesn't call for a background check would cease to be "ordinary." If he sells a gun without a background check, and the buyer later turns out to use it to commit a crime, a harm occurs. Thus, even without explicit legislation, the courts could impose a de facto mandate to run background checks on private sales by means of tort law.

 

[DFarcher]

If it's mandatory I don't think it is constitutional because that would get back to the federal government trying to regulate intrastate commerce.

I'd love to see the house pass a bill requiring background checks at the polling place before you can vote. And when democrats howl about it infringing on people's right to vote they should point out that only one right in the constitution is specifically protected from all infringement.

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

So are you part of a "well regulated militia". No part of the 2nd amendment should be taken out of context. Your contention that ANYONE can do as they want where firearms are concerned because of the "shall not be infringed" verbage is just as off base as those who contend only the "militia" may posess firearms because of that verbage.

 

[DFarcher]

Do any of you who do not like Colburn's proposed legislation have ANY ideas that might work better.

 

[uncle money bags]

100% incorrect! Under Coburn's bill there is no call to the FBI NICS and no 4473. Current dealer want no part of a expanded check system.

his point is that you already have a system in place to address your concerns.

 

[mugsy]

This, and it could easily become "mandatory" without any further legislation.

"Negligence," as a tort, is the failure to exercise ordinary care, with resultant harm. If NICS (or similar) is readily available to everybody, and people start using it, then the person who doesn't call for a background check would cease to be "ordinary." If he sells a gun without a background check, and the buyer later turns out to use it to commit a crime, a harm occurs. Thus, even without explicit legislation, the courts could impose a de facto mandate to run background checks on private sales by means of tort law.

We are already a hair's breadth from some court somewhere declaring gun seller liability as it is so I don't consider that a very strong argument against this proposal. To address liability would require (IMO given our excessively litigious society) a separate law protecting gun sellers. However, be forewarned there is nothing to prevent a properly disposed judge and jury deciding that they should "press to test" with a liability case . The system being voluntary only is the hitch, or rather it is the test of whether this is a workable solution or not. I think Sen Coburn is right to at least try to address this and we'll see where it goes. I would use such a system if it was available.

 

[otis147]

Do any of you who do not like Colburn's proposed legislation have ANY ideas that might work better.

how about reestablishing the 2nd amendment?

 

[jonodeck]

"Do any of you who do not like Colburn's proposed legislation have ANY ideas that might work better."

Why yes. Enforce the ****ing laws that are on the books now.

We have too many laws.

 

[Sanford]

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

See that red thing? That's a comma. In the English language it's used to indicate an interpretation of the text such that the words immediately before and after the comma are less closely or exclusively linked than they might be otherwise. The first phrase is the reason, the second phrase is the right. The right to keep and bear arms is not contingent on one being a member of the militia. To better expand on the initial meaning remember the historical context of the day and time when citizens were responsible for *bringing their own guns* to fight if called up (what we today would call "drafted") to serve in the militia. The entire concept of a federally funded "National Guard" is a more recent aberration resulting from the Militia Act of 1903.

 

[abajaj11]

The main problem I see with this is that it is being offered as an amendment to the Reid gun bill instead of being a stand alone bill. My other question would be is it mandatory or voluntary? Voluntary is great, mandatory not so much.

I agree. Voluntary is fine. Mandatory means the only way to enforce it is to know who owns what, so the government can know when a sale took place. And that means registration.

 

[otis147]

a common interpretation of the word "regulated" of the day was "trained and supplied"
we're all part of the militia, we should be well armed, and trained in the use of those arms.

the only other argument i've heard that makes any sense is that the first half is conceding the necessary evil of a standing army, and that the only way to prevent tyranny is to allow the non-military to have and carry weapons... you know, cannons and stuff included.