Sunday, September 22, 2013

PA gun owner on why background checks are necessary

Larry Glick, former executive director of the National Tactical Officers Association, explains why universal background checks will help keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people.



And don't forget that background checks are Constitutional according to the Heller and McDonald decisions!
Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott 333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Heller at 54-5
Which has as a footnote (26):
We identify these presumptively lawful regulatory measures only as examples; our list does not purport to be exhaustive.
Better yet:
But the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table. These include the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home. Heller at 64
From McDonald:
It is important to keep in mind that Heller, while striking down a law that prohibited the possession of handguns in the home, recognized that the right to keep and bear arms is not “a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” 554 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 54). We made it clear in Heller that our holding did not cast doubt on such longstanding regulatory measures as “prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill,” “laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.” Id., at ___–___ (slip op., at 54–55). We repeat those assurances here. Despite municipal respondents’ doomsday proclamations, incorporation does not imperil every law regulating firearms. McDonald at 39-40

9 comments:

  1. We've proposed a way of doing background checks that would not keep a record. We've explained to you how criminals will get guns, no matter what burdens you put on the law-abiding. But you don't get it. Just know that when you continue to lose, it's because of the reasons that we've already discussed.

    And on the constitutional point, nothing in those rulings requires any specific gun control measure. All Scalia said was that some regulations may be acceptable.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Criminals get guns because there are no records. If there were records, there would be many fewer criminals, except it would expose the millions of gunsuck NRA criminals who sell guns to gang bangers. That is why criminals like you do not want records.

      Delete
    2. You are now on record as committing libel, unless you can prove that I'm a criminal.

      Delete
    3. Funny! Who is he NRA Greg? Who will you file the lawsuit against?

      Delete
    4. I'm just stating a fact. But if it came to it, a court order would answer that question.

      Delete
    5. Oh, so you do use the law, instead of taking the law into your own hands. Truly a hypocrite.

      Delete
  2. The 19th century courts also upheld preventing women and blacks from voting. One of the biggest problems in our society is trust in our government...hence the existence of the Second Amendment. But before anyone goes off on that tangent, the biggest barrier right now to reasonable debate about gun violence is the (justified) concern gun enthusiasts have that gun control advocates want to ban firearms. After 17 years as a LEO, and a lifetime of gun support, I want background checks, but the issues on AWB and magazine limits are directly targeted to pave the road to firearm bans. I mean, come on, the AR15 is NOT an assault weapon, a term coined in Nov 1970 in the US Army definition of firearms. We need to put the issue of firearm bans to rest so we may talk about REAL actions against gun violence.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for sharing those repetitious and bogus NRA themes.

      Delete
    2. Heh. Guy agrees with you on background checks, but because he disagrees on AWB you dismiss him.

      Delete