Well that all depends on weather or not you think the Supreme Court's twisted interpretation of the commerce clause is constitutional. Can the feds regulate the sale of intrastate (within the state) firearms? They get away with it now, but HB627 directly challenges the federal government's authority in that area.baldeagle wrote:This is interesting. An attorney has written a letter to Senator Cruz outlining the meaning of recent Supreme Court decisions. Among other things, he wrote this:So it would appear that people who regularly set up booths and sell guns at gun shows would be in violation of federal law. It would also appear that requiring them to do background checks would be constitutional. It would not, however, be constitutional to require an individual who happened to sell a gun at a gun show to perform a background check.Federal law has long defined what constitutes “commercial sale” of arms. A person is required to obtain a Federal Firearms License (and become subject to many conditions and qualifications when selling arms) if the person is “engaged in the business” of selling firearms. This means:
a person who devotes time, attention, and labor to dealing in firearms as a regular course of trade or business with the principal objective of livelihood and profit through the repetitive purchase and resale of firearms, but such term shall not include a person who makes occasional sales, exchanges, or purchases of firearms for the enhancement of a personal collection or for a hobby, or who sells all or part of his personal collection of firearms;
18 U.S.C. §921(a)(21)(D). Of course a person who is “engaged in the business,” but who does not have a FFL, is guilty of a federal felony every time he sells a firearm. 18 U.S.C. §§922(a), 924.
Currently, the federal NICS law matches the constitutional standard set forth in Heller. NICS applies to all sales by persons who are “engaged in the business” (FFLs) and does not apply to transfers by persons who are not “engaged in the business.”
Search found 3 matches
Return to “Senators seek back room deal on firearm background checks”
- Tue Feb 12, 2013 1:31 pm
- Forum: Gun and/or Self-Defense Related Political Issues
- Topic: Senators seek back room deal on firearm background checks
- Replies: 48
- Views: 7269
Re: Senators seek back room deal on firearm background check
- Sun Feb 10, 2013 9:34 am
- Forum: Gun and/or Self-Defense Related Political Issues
- Topic: Senators seek back room deal on firearm background checks
- Replies: 48
- Views: 7269
Re: Senators seek back room deal on firearm background check
Y'all would think it unacceptable if, prior to posting a comment on this board, you had to seek approval from the government first. Can you imagine the outrage of having your words checked before you could exercise your God given right to free speech? Why is it so difficult to see background checks in the same light?
The law abiding majority of us must seek government approval before purchasing the means to exercise our God given right to self defense all because of the possibility of what someone else may do. Not because of what we might do, but the possibility of what someone else might do. It's absurd. I mean think about it. Do you like having to go to your "daddy" government and asking, "Oh please, please, please, can I buy a gun? I've been a good boy."
The purchase and sale of guns are not the problem. Evil men (or women) are the problem. To paraphrase Jeff Cooper, the problem of evil men can ge corrected by good men with guns. We need to deal with the evil in society and stop intruding into the lives of the law abiding. We don't need more background checks. We need less.
The law abiding majority of us must seek government approval before purchasing the means to exercise our God given right to self defense all because of the possibility of what someone else may do. Not because of what we might do, but the possibility of what someone else might do. It's absurd. I mean think about it. Do you like having to go to your "daddy" government and asking, "Oh please, please, please, can I buy a gun? I've been a good boy."
The purchase and sale of guns are not the problem. Evil men (or women) are the problem. To paraphrase Jeff Cooper, the problem of evil men can ge corrected by good men with guns. We need to deal with the evil in society and stop intruding into the lives of the law abiding. We don't need more background checks. We need less.
- Sat Feb 09, 2013 4:58 pm
- Forum: Gun and/or Self-Defense Related Political Issues
- Topic: Senators seek back room deal on firearm background checks
- Replies: 48
- Views: 7269
Re: Senators seek back room deal on firearm background check
In his latest interview with Piers Morgan, Ted Nugent stated he was against background checks. I'd have to agree with him.
Private sales, on the other hand, are where things start to get a little too obnoxious. I'll likely draw the line there.
I tolerate background checks for commercial sales. I don't think I should have too, but I do. I mean what ever happened to the whole concept of innocent until proven guilty? We shouldn't have to prove anything to, or seek approval from, the government for anything.Robert A. Heinlein wrote:I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do.
Private sales, on the other hand, are where things start to get a little too obnoxious. I'll likely draw the line there.