Schumer plows ahead with gun registration
Chief Tango sends us a link to the Washington Post which reports that Li’l Chuckie Schumer is going ahead with his plans for mandating background checks on all gun sales, despite the fact that he can’t even get a consensus from his little working group.
For weeks, Schumer has been locked in negotiations over a new background check bill with Sens. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) and Joe Manchin III (D-W.Va.). Early on, Schumer agreed to change his original proposal to permit limited exceptions for the transfer of firearms between family members and close friends. But aides familiar with the talks said Schumer and Coburn repeatedly locked horns over whether to keep records of private gun sales, a provision that Democrats believe is necessary to fully enforce any new background check law.
Now, think about it, how would keeping a record of background checks prevent crime? Seriously. The only reason that anyone would want to keep a record is for eventual registration, which would, we all know, lead to confiscation. Schumer said as much last year when he admitted that registration is a back door to eventual confiscation.
Joe Manchin, West Virginia Senator, says that he won’t support Schumer’s bill, but ya know what, I’ll wait to see how the vote comes out before I’ll pat him on the back. Of course, I’ve flooded his office with faxes, so he knows we’re watching.
The Post continues by posting a completely irrelevant poll;
A January Washington Post-ABC News poll showed that nearly nine in 10 Americans (88 percent) support requiring background checks for sales at gun shows. Seven in 10 (71 percent) endorsed the creation of a federal database to track all firearm sales, with 54 percent supporting the idea “strongly.” More than half of respondents in gun-owning households supported each measure.
Yeah, I wonder what your poll would say if you asked respondents whether they support keeping records of transfers after watching the Schumer video;
Category: Gun Grabbing Fascists
rb325th (44): “last I checked we are not guaranteed the right to own anything under the US Constitution… well except guns.
“Otherwise you have the opportunity to purchase a vehicle if you so choose, but I still have not seen any guarantees that you have the Right to.”
AHEM(ninthamendment)AHEM …
“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
I’ll say it slower, just for you:
Yes, the Constitution specifically guarantees the right to bear arms.
But that doesn’t mean that we are not guaranteed the right to own cars, or any other kinds of personal property.
The Ninth Amendment is that guarantee.
[My emphasis added below … ]
“In order to allow the state the broad powers of control over motor vehicles that it must have to keep the roads at all safe, the courts had to do some juggling with our traditional ideas as to our rights and privileges as Citizens. After all, doesn’t every taxpayer help pay for the roads; and, therefore, shouldn’t everyone have an absolute right to use the roads as he sees fit? Well, if this were the case, then we could forget all about any effective traffic control because such rights could only be controlled by very elaborate and complicated court procedures. To get around this, the courts set up the theory that the right to drive is a privilege and not a constitutional right; privileges are subject to state control with a minimum of formalities — whereas rights are surrounded with constitutional protections and can be moved only by a legal bulldozer.”
~ Manual for the Traffic Officer, by Irving Isaacson (1964), pp. 32, 33.
EX-PH2 (48): “You don’t have to have a driver’s license or auto plates if you’re driving on your own property and stay within your property lines. It’s mostly just a tax now and a source of revenue, and rises every year.”
No, but we do have to register our cars with (i.e., pay a fee to) the State, or we’re not allowed to own it — even if the vehicle never leaves your property.
Not saying it should be this way, just that it is this way.
Eagle Keeper: you misread the Constitution quite badly.
The 9th Amendment is a restriction on the Federal government, and is intended to prevent the Federal government from restricting individual liberty by legal fiat. However, it is not a restriction on the actions of State and local governments.
The 10th Amendment makes that latter point very clear, and indeed specifically gives States and localities the authority to regulate pretty much anything they so desire provided they do not abridge rights specifically guaranteed by the US Constitution which have held to be binding on the states (not all of the Bill of Rights has been held to be binding as a restriction on state and local governments).
As I’ve said previously, the concept is called “Federalism”. Perhaps you’ve heard of it?
Under the 10th Amendment, a state or locality is in general free to regulate or even ban ownership or use of specific types of property – such as alcoholic beverages or automobiles. While state or local laws doing so might be arguably stupid or counterproductive, they’re completely legal.
However, the US Constitution specifically prescribes the individual right of firearms ownership, and the Second Amendment has now been held by the SCOTUS to be binding on states and local governments (McDonald v. Chicago, 2010). As a result, states and localities have far less latitude to regulate firearms ownership than they do most other types of property.
@53, Maybe you have to do that in your state, but not in my state. I sold my old car to a junkyard. It was a simple title transfer. No registration or tax was involved. What happened to it after I sold it? I don’t know. No my concern. But there was no registration required for the junkyard owner. I asked about it, because I was unwilling to leave the license plates on the car.