Why closing the "Gun Show Loop Hole" leads to registration of all weapons

[Poke78]

You bet. It always leads to confiscation. Check out:
http://gunwatch.blogspot.com/2012/12/gun-registration-is-gun-confiscation.html

The lefties goal in this run may be to throw a bunch of bills at us, and then "negotiate" to get one passed...the "least harmful", "common-sense" one: that of requiring background checks on ALL gun sales.
Then a couple of years down the line, when the US Supreme Court structure has been changed to one more anti 2A, they will turn around and say, "Now, we need common sense registration of all firearms to enforce background checks on all sales". Then in 2 years after that, America will have been disarmed.
I think this will be their strategy: a 4 year plan to disarm America.
We need to be totally on guard for this "commonsense background check on all sales rule", because it will inevitably lead to registration of firearms: the holy grail for all gun banners.
Please write to all congressmen, senators and to anyone else you think can influence this debate.

Check out the link @: https://www.okshooters.com/showthread.php?161507-Dear-Mr-Security-Agent

Covers exactly why and the historical background of just how bad "common sense gun registration" can go wrong. Any politician that lets those words or just "common sense" pass their lips, that's when I know they are about to step off into the deep end.

 

[Dave70968]

The Federal government should have no jurisdiction to regulate commerce within a state, so this may be a hard one to pass constitutional muster. However, it may be the Dems are hoping they can say that "if a firearm was used once in interstate commerce then we can regulate it forever". This argument has already been upheld by the US Supreme court in the GunFree School Zones Act

Lopez struck down the Gun Free School Zones Act. It was re-passed including token language about interstate commerce. A few years ago, the high court took up a case about whether commerce that is purely intra-state affected interstate commerce; a conservative majority held that it did. Raich v. Gonzalez.

 

[abajaj11]

Lopez struck down the Gun Free School Zones Act. It was re-passed including token language about interstate commerce. A few years ago, the high court took up a case about whether commerce that is purely intra-state affected interstate commerce; a conservative majority held that it did. Raich v. Gonzalez.

Well there you go. Thank you for clarifying. Guess it will be even easier then for it to pass constitutional muster!
We all need to join the NRA yesterday. And get more folks to join in.

 

[okiebryan]

Damn, dude, you woke up on the different side of the bed today?

No, someone logically connected the dots rather than calling me names and telling me something is so just because I'm to stupid to understand why it's so.

That didn't work on me in 3rd grade, and it still doesn't work at 44 years old. I'm pretty logical about stuff.

 

[abajaj11]

Gee what a coincidence. Please read the original post of this thread, and then see where Crazy Uncle JOe Biden and the other lefties are heading. .....They want the holy grail of all gun banners: Registration of all firearms. And to do that, they are first seeking to mandate that ALL sales in the USA require a federal background check. Once you mandate background checks for ALL sales, then the question is...how do you enforce that with unregistered weapons? There are millions of unregistered weapons in the USA. So then they will ask for universal registration in order to implement this mandate.
We need to resist this proposal COMPLETELY.
Or in 4 years, this country will be disarmed.
The link below shows their strategy emerging .... unveiled today:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/biden-hints-outlawing-unregulated-private-gun-sales_695080.html
PLease write to every forum you can, alerting people to this ploy that we saw coming a few days ago....

 

[mugsy]

Lopez struck down the Gun Free School Zones Act. It was re-passed including token language about interstate commerce. A few years ago, the high court took up a case about whether commerce that is purely intra-state affected interstate commerce; a conservative majority held that it did. Raich v. Gonzalez.

I would say rather that the Conservatives were split while the Liberals were united. Scalia voted with the majority but wrote a separate concurring opinion because he belived there was a separate more limited legal foundation, Justice O'Connor dissented and vted against and Chief Justice Rhenquist voted with the dissent. Justice Thomas wrote a detailed dissenting opinion that is an excellent example of his consistently Conservative principles.

 

[Burk Cornelius]

May I use this text elsewhere? Very well written BTW

Seems like some republicans may be looking to cave on the "gun show loophole" and may be OK with requiring federally mandated NIC checks for ALL sales, even those private FTF sales in states.

Here IMHO is why this is a really bad idea:

1. There is no Gun show loophole. The exact same state and federal laws hold IN a gun show as outside it. Closing the "gun show loophole" means basically mandating at the federal level that all sales of firearms HAVE to go through NIC checks (Form 4473). The Federal government should have no jurisdiction to regulate commerce within a state, so this may be a hard one to pass constitutional muster. However, it may be the Dems are hoping they can say that "if a firearm was used once in interstate commerce then we can regulate it forever". This argument has already been upheld by the US Supreme court in the GunFree School Zones Act (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun-Free_School_Zones_Act_of_1990)

2. Think about how a federally mandated background check on ALL firearms will be implemented. Right now, only firearms sold through FFL dealers have to pass a NICs (Form 4473) test in all states, and in some states the state laws mandate that all transfers have to be through an FFL dealer. The feds regulate the FFL dealers and do not keep records of transactions, but the FFL dealers have to. If an FFL dealer goes out of business, those records go to ATF for storage, and are never lost. Now imagine extending this requirement to ALL buyers and sellers of firearms. Well this is impossible.

So the feds will say, well let us just require all states to do what california, for example, does already. All transfers must go through an FFL. But what to do about the millions of unregistered guns in the USA? How do the feds know who owns them? If they don't know who owns them, how will they verify that ALL guns are being sold after a NICS check? Well, the FEDs will come back and say: "We cannot implement your new law unless you allow us to register all firearms". So the inevitable next step to mandating background check on ALL firearm sales will be a demand to Congress that all firearms be registered, without which the law will be impossible to enforce.

Registration is a VERY bad idea. Registration will not prevent a crime since a legal gun may be stolen and used by a criminal (like in the Newtown case) and of course a criminal will never register an illegitimate gun they may already own.
So, the only reason for registration is keeping tabs on legal gun owners, and if needed, confiscation of firearms.

Since the 2A was written to provide a well regulated (trained) populace that could be stronger than any standing army that a tyrant could raise, the LAST thing the armed populace wants is for potential tyrants to know who has what firearm. That is why this insidious "background checks for all sales" bill MUST be resisted. it will open the door to registration in a year or two.
Just my 2 cents.

 

[abajaj11]

May I use this text elsewhere? Very well written BTW

Thank you and please feel free to re-use. The more folks that know this the better.

 

[abajaj11]

Check this out:
"Gun-safety activists were coalescing around expanded background checks as a key goal for the vice president's task force. Some advocates said it may be more politically realistic - and even more effective as policy - than reinstating a ban on assault weapons.
The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence said some 40 percent of gun sales happen with no background checks, such as at gun shows and by private sellers over the Internet or through classified ads.
"Our top policy priority is closing the massive hole in the background check system," the group said Friday.
While not backing off support for an assault weapons ban, some advocates said there could be broader political support for increasing background checks, in part because that could actually increase business for retailers and licensed gun dealers who have access to the federal background check system."
__________
from:
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/storie...ME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2013-01-11-21-48-28

We have to prevent this loophole closing from being passed because it will lead to mandatory registration via executive order, IMHO. PLease consider talking about this when you call your senators and reps.
IMHO, this should be our line in the sand.

 

[abajaj11]

Here is another one from the Center for American Progress (CAp), a liberal think tank funded by Soros and very influential in Obama administration:
"CAP’s top recommendation is to require criminal background checks for all gun sales, closing loopholes that currently enable an estimated 40 percent of sales to occur without any questions asked. "
from:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...192d26-5c2a-11e2-9fa9-5fbdc9530eb9_print.html

It seems the Libs are really pushing for Congress to pass the "gun show loophole ban" because, IMHO, that can open the door to a lot of executive actions to enforce it...mainly a national database of all firearms.