What is wrong with universal background checks?

[countryroads89_rivals]

2nd Amendment.

Where does it say women have the right to murder their babies?

So the Brady Bill - Previous Assault Weapons ban violated the 2nd A? LOL!

 

[EEResistable]

So the Brady Bill - Previous Assault Weapons ban violated the 2nd A? LOL!

Yes it did.

 

[TarHeelEer]

Seems like a great solution and focuses on the problem....threat risk of the people buying the guns.

I'm not going to pay for a background check to give/sell a gun to my child or friend.

 

[TarHeelEer]

So the Brady Bill - Previous Assault Weapons ban violated the 2nd A? LOL!

How can you laugh? It was never contested.

 

[mule_eer]

How can you laugh? It was never contested.

Incorrect. Printz v United States. That struck down the requirement for state and local law enforcement to conduct the background checks on 10th amendment grounds. The remainder of the law was not deemed unconstitutional.

 

[TarHeelEer]

Incorrect. Printz v United States. That struck down the requirement for state and local law enforcement to conduct the background checks on 10th amendment grounds. The remainder of the law was not deemed unconstitutional.

Uhhh, no. The rest of the law was not contested, nor ruled on.

 

[mule_eer]

Uhhh, no. The rest of the law was not contested, nor ruled on.

The NRA argument in that case was that the whole law had to be scrapped because of that 10th amendment concern. The court ruled that the remainder of the law was constitutional.

 

[DvlDog4WVU]

The NRA argument in that case was that the whole law had to be scrapped because of that 10th amendment concern. The court ruled that the remainder of the law was constitutional.

Constitutional as it related to the 10th amendment.

 

[TarHeelEer]

The NRA argument in that case was that the whole law had to be scrapped because of that 10th amendment concern. The court ruled that the remainder of the law was constitutional.

Want to point me to where the opinion states that?

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/95-1478.ZO.html

 

[WVUCOOPER]

The law was in place for a decade, and no one was inconvenienced enough to get this in front of SCOTUS?

 

[MountaineerWV]

I'm not going to pay for a background check to give/sell a gun to my child or friend.

If it's the law, yes....you will.

 

[DvlDog4WVU]

The law was in place for a decade, and no one was inconvenienced enough to get this in front of SCOTUS?

It was a 10 year thing that was immediately worked around by the manufacturers. It wasn’t pressing.

 

[DvlDog4WVU]

If it's the law, yes....you will.

Or no, I wont, because they can’t enforce it. There is zero way to keep this enforced.

 

[WVUCOOPER]

It was a 10 year thing that was immediately worked around by the manufacturers. It wasn’t pressing.

They cared enough about that other issue? Just find it odd.

 

[eerdoc]

Another layer of protection. Would certainly flag some nutcases. Plus your crowd has been saying all along that ‘guns don’t kill people, people kill people’. This goes right to the heart of the problem.

Hold it!
We already have background checks AND criminals do not get their guns by buying them through gun dealers . Look at the last several ‘shooters’ and see what small percentage of them would have been stopped through the proposed background checks. Nearly all have gotten their guns AFTER undergoing a background check. What we are hearing is nonsensical political verbiage designed to confuse rather than make a significant improvement.
Add to this the inference that these lunatics are using AUTOMATIC weapons. Are they this ignorant or, simply,dishonest.

 

[Snow Sled Baby]

Seems like a great solution and focuses on the problem....threat risk of the people buying the guns.

nothing...except 40% of you liberals will be in jail if it happens....bring it on