If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Sorry, RememberSchiff, impressment in wartime is a different deal, eh? In wartime the government can also impress humans, not just horses.
Da law always recognized that the right of travel applied not just to walking, but to the common personal transport of the day. Like all rights, it is subject to reasonable regulation when the state has compelling interest, for safety or commerce. When we got to high levels of auto or air traffic, rules and formalized training became necessary. For each, da rules for commerce have always been much stronger than for private individuals. Thus separate license classes for commercial operators of cars, boats, and planes, with stricter rules.
Beavah you missed the point. The certain reimbursement for the impressment of your horse, etc. after the war as you would expect if owning a horse was your Constitutional right; that reimbursement was not there. So I doubt, our pragmatic Founding Fathers would have considered owning a horse a right, with all the other bills to be paid.
During WW2 via a FDR executive order, our government impressed Japanese Americans into internment camps for up to three years. The Constitutional rights of these Americans had been violated and in 1988, a $1.6 billion reparation program was set up.
Post 9/11 "reasonable regulation"? More like regulation gone wild. Good to see, the TSA are finally removing those "reasonable" X-ray scanners, maybe "reasonable" groping will be next to go?(This message has been edited by RememberSchiff)
Nah, I didn't miss the point. In wartime, yeh can draft humans into military service, deprive 'em of all kinds of rights during their term of service, and afterward not compensate 'em for what their business losses were while they were away. That doesn't mean da rights don't exist, it means that in wartime there can be an extra tax on our labor or our goods as the needs of war demand.
Sorry, but in this area I have a fair bit of expert knowledge, eh? I'm not lyin' to you when I say that the right to travel on or in a personally owned means of travel was viewed throughout da history of da Republic as a fundamental Constitutional right. As fundamental as da right to breathe the air in public spaces (a right, I'll note, that is also not enumerated. ).
Only in da modern era of vehicle travel where da increased power, speed, and traffic density demanded safety and commerce regulation has that been eroded. Perhaps that's some of that "people givin' up their rights" that some folks keep talkin' about. Like with TSA, eh? Though TSA only applies to common carrier air transport. Airline security was historically a commerce regulation. It placed requirements on businesses engaged in air transport to ensure safe and reliable commerce. I can still hop in a private plane and fly almost anywhere I want, without talkin' to anybody, and without takin' off my shoes. To have true freedom of travel on a horse, yeh have to own da horse.
Still, if yeh want to prevent da erosion of fundamental rights, yeh have to stop treatin' 'em like they are privileges that the government grants. That's balderdash. We aren't a monarchy. Our rights do not come as grants of privilege from da monarch.
Oh, and by the way. THERE IS NO "GUN SHOW LOOPHOLE". The law applies to gun shows exactly the same as it does anywhere else. Dealers at gun shows have to run exactly the same background checks as they do in their own shop.
Acco40, I just noted the use of the term 'impressed'. Which sense were you using? The sense in which it essentially means 'drafted' or forced into service? Or the sense in which it means that it made an impression (perhaps negatively)?
Aw, packsaddle, it was such a beautiful double-entendre. Did yeh have to spoil it with an explanation?
Woapalanne, as I'm sure yeh know, the "gun show loophole" is in fact a private sale loophole, that allows for 40% of firearm sales to occur without background checks. Largely at gun shows. Often in commercial-like transactions.
Sorry, as you well know, sometimes I have to ask to be sure.
I just heard that the NRA has reversed itself and now opposes universal background checks. LaPierre said something along the lines of, 'because criminals won't go through the background checks'.
Huh? Is the guy really that stupid?
Beavah, that 40% number is misleading and incorrect.
a nationally representative telephone
survey (1994) on private
ownership and use of firearms by
American adults. The survey provides
the most complete data available
on the private stock of
firearms in the United States."
Can you get us a reference for 40% gun sales w/o BG check since background checks became the law? ie: post Brady Bill? (Feb 28, 1994.)
It's actually sorta interesting that 60% of gun purchases did have a background check before...
So guns can't be taxed because of the 2nd amendment? Think I'll run down to Dick's and try to buy a gun without paying the sales tax. Voting is a right--can't tax it but try to vote without being registered.
Yah, hmmm... I confess I was repeatin' news media figures. As yeh know, since 1996 most of da research in this area has been blocked by da firearms lobby, so the real answer is probably "nobody knows."
National Shooting Sports Foundation commissioned a marketing study in 2010 on owners of Modern Sporting Rifles (aka "assault rifles"). That indicated that less than 50% had purchased through retailers. 10% at gun shows, da rest through the internet or private sales. So that at least suggests da 40% figure is in da ballpark.
There's some research in individual states; Michigan estimates 48% of gun transfers are private party sales, based on their State Police havin' a parallel tracking system on private party sales over and above da federal requirements. That's interestin'; my state doesn't have that, but it suggests that some states have been pushin' some sort of checks on private sales, which would of course push da actual number of background checks to a higher percentage.
From where I sit, though, both sides are blowin' so much chaff at this point that it's hard to get a lock on any genuinely reliable information on anything, eh? So let's call it ballpark only. Plus or minus 20%.
Still, where do yeh think da criminals are goin' to go to get a gun, eh? Da licensed dealer or somewhere yeh can do a relatively anonymous and unchecked private sale? Why leave that back door open for bad guys?
But you sorta answered your own question, didn't you? What would be really interesting to know is the percentage of criminals who buy their guns from legitimate sources.
Another way to look at it: how many crimes (other than cases of self-defense gone wrong) are committed with a gun purchased legally by the person who originally bought that gun and submitted to a BGC?
Dynamics to consider:
1- Only the most stupid crooks would consider potentially turning themselves in by submitting to a BGC.
2- Stolen TVs are cheaper than legitimate retail. How does that apply to the cost of street guns versus retail prices? If you're a crook, is it not cheaper to buy a stolen (no BGC) gun?
So, would universal BGCs reduce crime? Nope. It would only generate more paperwork for people who are already planning to obey the law.
BTW: There was never a ban on research, just a ban on federally funded research, specifically health related organizations that have little business researching policy issues. If there was any potential for a vaccine against high speed lead, maybe CDC research would be relevant.
My nutter coworker was at a gun show in Wilmington Ohio a couple of weeks ago.
There was a guy selling AR clones with a big sign on the table that said no background checks. The prices, according to him, were $500 more than what the other fellows were selling like models for at other tables.