Why 'No Fly, No Buy' means no freedom

[Flightmare]

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2016/06/ ... cmp=hphz03

I have long been a fan of Judge Andrew Napolitano. He hammered several points home in this opinion piece.

[RogueUSMC]

The more rights are equated to privileges, there will be the increasing condition that there is no difference. By saying, "because he doesn't have privilege 'A', he shouldn't have right 'B'", we are stripping the meaning of the word 'rights'.

I think it was Napoleon that once said, "people will fight harder for their privileges than they will their rights." And that little jerk used that to his advantage...

[cb1000rider]

This is fairly politicized and it's easily leveraged.
Not many of us are passionate about our commercial flight privileges. Many of us are passionate about 2nd amendment rights.

The issue comes about when we our government has enough "justification" to put someone on a semi-secret no-fly list, but lack the required justification to prevent them from buying a firearm.

The reality is:
* This would impact very few people. The people it does impact are likely to be mostly suspect people.
* A few good guys that have political enemies might be added to this list. It'd be expensive or impossible to get off of.
* Implementing no-fly / no-buy is very unlikely to do anything to protect the American people. This issue is political fodder.

Rather than discussing a rational means that would protect the American people and prevent bad guys from getting guns, we continue with this dribble. And because it's in the media, we debate it.

What is a rational means that would protect the American people? Give me, a private firearm seller, a means to green-light or red-light the sale to a private party based on drivers license number. It protects me as a seller, does quite a bit to close the "private sale" loophole and gives responsible gun owners some means to make sure we're not selling to someone that shouldn't have a gun.

[JALLEN]

This is fairly politicized and it's easily leveraged.
Not many of us are passionate about our commercial flight privileges. Many of us are passionate about 2nd amendment rights.

The issue comes about when we our government has enough "justification" to put someone on a semi-secret no-fly list, but lack the required justification to prevent them from buying a firearm.

The reality is:
* This would impact very few people. The people it does impact are likely to be mostly suspect people.
* A few good guys that have political enemies might be added to this list. It'd be expensive or impossible to get off of.
* Implementing no-fly / no-buy is very unlikely to do anything to protect the American people. This issue is political fodder.

Rather than discussing a rational means that would protect the American people and prevent bad guys from getting guns, we continue with this dribble. And because it's in the media, we debate it.

What is a rational means that would protect the American people? Give me, a private firearm seller, a means to green-light or red-light the sale to a private party based on drivers license number. It protects me as a seller, does quite a bit to close the "private sale" loophole and gives responsible gun owners some means to make sure we're not selling to someone that shouldn't have a gun.

A good solution that efficiently accomplishes the stated goal of limiting gun sales to certain people while not disadvantaging legitimate law abiding transactions is not what is desired. Making gun sales as cumbersome and difficult as possible, or illegal is.

[ScottDLS]

The private sale (i.e. gun show) loophole is really a Constitutional issue. Not a 2nd amendment issue, but an Article I issue (commerce clause). The regulation of private transactions between individuals within a state resides with the State or the People. So if Texas wants to set up a system for private sellers to check each other based on DL, fine. Though I would prefer they don't.

[JALLEN]

The private sale (i.e. gun show) loophole is really a Constitutional issue. Not a 2nd amendment issue, but an Article I issue (commerce clause). The regulation of private transactions between individuals within a state resides with the State or the People. So if Texas wants to set up a system for private sellers to check each other based on DL, fine. Though I would prefer they don't.

Not exactly. The states can regulate commerce within its borders only to the extent Congress has not occupied the field. It's very complex, too much for complete discussion on this iPhone, but there are lots of cases. If Congress has acted, the state may not enforce contradictory measures.

[ScottDLS]

The private sale (i.e. gun show) loophole is really a Constitutional issue. Not a 2nd amendment issue, but an Article I issue (commerce clause). The regulation of private transactions between individuals within a state resides with the State or the People. So if Texas wants to set up a system for private sellers to check each other based on DL, fine. Though I would prefer they don't.

Not exactly. The states can regulate commerce within its borders only to the extent Congress has not occupied the field. It's very complex, too much for complete discussion on this iPhone, but there are lots of cases. If Congress has acted, the state may not enforce contradictory measures.

I don't believe that was the intent of the founders. The commerce clause has been stretched significantly since the 1930's, but nowhere does it say that congress gets to have the first say in intra-state commercial or criminal matters.

[cb1000rider]

A good solution that efficiently accomplishes the stated goal of limiting gun sales to certain people while not disadvantaging legitimate law abiding transactions is not what is desired. Making gun sales as cumbersome and difficult as possible, or illegal is.

Do you think that the solution that I proposed meets these requirements? Private party sales are somewhat risky:
1) You can't tell if what you bought was stolen. If you were to take it to the PD to "check" it, that comes with risks.
2) You can't really confirm that who you are selling to is legally able to possess a firearm, other than accepting their word.

Both are resolve by exposing a little existing technology. Don't want to do it as a buyer/seller, you don't have to, but you're liable for the results.


Do what you want with retail sales, but as long as private sales have no means to effectively check on the firearm or the buyer, it's the wild west.

[JALLEN]

The private sale (i.e. gun show) loophole is really a Constitutional issue. Not a 2nd amendment issue, but an Article I issue (commerce clause). The regulation of private transactions between individuals within a state resides with the State or the People. So if Texas wants to set up a system for private sellers to check each other based on DL, fine. Though I would prefer they don't.

Not exactly. The states can regulate commerce within its borders only to the extent Congress has not occupied the field. It's very complex, too much for complete discussion on this iPhone, but there are lots of cases. If Congress has acted, the state may not enforce contradictory measures.

I don't believe that was the intent of the founders. The commerce clause has been stretched significantly since the 1930's, but nowhere does it say that congress gets to have the first say in intra-state commercial or criminal matters.

It has been the law of the land since the 1930's that the Commerce Clause gives Congress the power to do all this. The cases since have steadily expanded that idea. The fight over the intent of the founders in this regard at least has been lost for 80 years.

The First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law..." Well, except for William O. Douglas and a couple of other eccentrics souls of like mind, the Court has gone along with Congress making all sorts of laws that impinge on freedom of the press, exercise of religion and curtail otherwise free speech

Really, purists have had little influence.

[ScottDLS]

The private sale (i.e. gun show) loophole is really a Constitutional issue. Not a 2nd amendment issue, but an Article I issue (commerce clause). The regulation of private transactions between individuals within a state resides with the State or the People. So if Texas wants to set up a system for private sellers to check each other based on DL, fine. Though I would prefer they don't.

Not exactly. The states can regulate commerce within its borders only to the extent Congress has not occupied the field. It's very complex, too much for complete discussion on this iPhone, but there are lots of cases. If Congress has acted, the state may not enforce contradictory measures.

I don't believe that was the intent of the founders. The commerce clause has been stretched significantly since the 1930's, but nowhere does it say that congress gets to have the first say in intra-state commercial or criminal matters.

It has been the law of the land since the 1930's that the Commerce Clause gives Congress the power to do all this. The cases since have steadily expanded that idea. The fight over the intent of the founders in this regard at least has been lost for 80 years.

The First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law..." Well, except for William O. Douglas and a couple of other eccentrics souls of like mind, the Court has gone along with Congress making all sorts of laws that impinge on freedom of the press, exercise of religion and curtail otherwise free speech

Really, purists have had little influence.

Why then doesn't the Congress regulate (directly) a national speed limit, drinking age, assault, burglary, and other criminal matters? Why is the Obamacare mandate and Social Security a tax and not a direct regulation of commerce? Why GCA 1968 didn't close the "private intrastate' sale "loophole". Because they thought it was beyond the federal government's authority.

I know that in (legal) practice the Constitution means whatever a majority of 9 justices say it means at the time. OK, then the Republic is lost (probably is) and we should all just accept that our rights are only granted or allowed to us by our betters in the federal government. And there is no restriction whatsoever on the power of the central government over the States. The anti-federalist were right in the end...

[Wag2323]

Maybe they should play this clip on the news to explain what the Dems want.

[cb1000rider]

Why then doesn't the Congress regulate (directly) a national speed limit, drinking age, assault, burglary, and other criminal matters? Why is the Obamacare mandate and Social Security a tax and not a direct regulation of commerce? Why GCA 1968 didn't close the "private intrastate' sale "loophole". Because they thought it was beyond the federal government's authority.

I the fed does dictate a drinking age limit by tying it to road funding:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_ ... ng_Age_Act

No idea on the rest of it... States rights!!!

[ScottDLS]

Why then doesn't the Congress regulate (directly) a national speed limit, drinking age, assault, burglary, and other criminal matters? Why is the Obamacare mandate and Social Security a tax and not a direct regulation of commerce? Why GCA 1968 didn't close the "private intrastate' sale "loophole". Because they thought it was beyond the federal government's authority.

I the fed does dictate a drinking age limit by tying it to road funding:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_ ... ng_Age_Act

No idea on the rest of it... States rights!!!

right they tie it to funding because they don't have the authority to do it directly. it's not a federal crime for a 20 year old to buy beer. It wasn't wasn't a federal crime to drive 56 on an interstate in the from 1974 - 1996, nor is it a federal crime to not wear your seatbelt, but they used funding to get all the states to do it for them.

[psijac]

The problem with sound logical arguments is that gun grabber are stuck in an emotional argument. What I have generally been using is: Every time you use the phrase Terror Watch List, you come one step closer to legitimizing every thing Bush did.

More than likely they don't know what Bush did in office, his policies, doctrine or anything else. All they know is Bush is bad and I don't want to agree with him because he is bad and I am not bad.

[JALLEN]

The private sale (i.e. gun show) loophole is really a Constitutional issue. Not a 2nd amendment issue, but an Article I issue (commerce clause). The regulation of private transactions between individuals within a state resides with the State or the People. So if Texas wants to set up a system for private sellers to check each other based on DL, fine. Though I would prefer they don't.

Not exactly. The states can regulate commerce within its borders only to the extent Congress has not occupied the field. It's very complex, too much for complete discussion on this iPhone, but there are lots of cases. If Congress has acted, the state may not enforce contradictory measures.

I don't believe that was the intent of the founders. The commerce clause has been stretched significantly since the 1930's, but nowhere does it say that congress gets to have the first say in intra-state commercial or criminal matters.

It has been the law of the land since the 1930's that the Commerce Clause gives Congress the power to do all this. The cases since have steadily expanded that idea. The fight over the intent of the founders in this regard at least has been lost for 80 years.

The First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law..." Well, except for William O. Douglas and a couple of other eccentrics souls of like mind, the Court has gone along with Congress making all sorts of laws that impinge on freedom of the press, exercise of religion and curtail otherwise free speech

Really, purists have had little influence.

Why then doesn't the Congress regulate (directly) a national speed limit, drinking age, assault, burglary, and other criminal matters? Why is the Obamacare mandate and Social Security a tax and not a direct regulation of commerce? Why GCA 1968 didn't close the "private intrastate' sale "loophole". Because they thought it was beyond the federal government's authority.

I know that in (legal) practice the Constitution means whatever a majority of 9 justices say it means at the time. OK, then the Republic is lost (probably is) and we should all just accept that our rights are only granted or allowed to us by our betters in the federal government. And there is no restriction whatsoever on the power of the central government over the States. The anti-federalist were right in the end...

Those are breathtaking leaps over complicated issues. Just because the clause is interpreted to give Congress a great deal of authority doesn't mean it can do as it pleases. The commerce clause is one of the most often litigated passages in the Constitution. There are limits though.

On another Supreme Court matter on another forum, I recently quoted Harry Truman, "the only thing new in the world is history you don't know." You must read the cases, follow the development of the precedents, the limitations, the justifications for interpreting as they do. It is very time consuming. I spent last night reading ~50 pages of opinion and order from a senior district court judge analyzing and applying the search and seizure laws, standards for issuing warrants, etc. Balancing the competing interests to make sure law enforcement has a chance to be effective without depriving people of important Constitutionally guaranteed rights involves some rather fine lines.