legislative intransigence and the politics of compromise

Barack Obama was against gay marriage before he became all for it. Wayne La Pierre was in favor of legislation mandating background checks for private party gun sales before he became all against it. When the facts changed, they changed their minds. What do you do, ma’am?

Joining the NRA in defending a system in which it is perfectly legal for someone to buy a dozen assault rifles and then sell them with no background checks in a parking lot, is a cinch in view of the eternal recurrence of gun ban proposals complemented by the gun ownership records produced by the proposed background checks. Democrat dreams of gun confiscation are a gift that keeps on giving to the advocates of gun rights.

The main fact that has changed in the fourteen years since Wayne LaPierre spoke in favor of mandatory background checks for private firearm sales, is the recognition by the SCOTUS of the right to keep and bear arms as fundamental and Constitutionally protected. The prevailing understanding of the Second Amendment is that it protects an individual right to keep and bear those, and only those small arms that are commonly used for self-defense and appropriate for service in the militia. This is consistent with gun control, e.g. through licensing concealed carry of handguns or registering the ownership of machine guns. But outright bans on ownership and carry have been off the table since Heller and McDonald. Nonetheless, we are witnessing renewed, if foredoomed, attempts to ban certain kinds of guns, including the AR15 platform, which in the wake of the 1994 AWB became America’s most popular rifle, i.e. the epitome of an arm subject to protection under the Second Amendment. As a self-anointed Constitutional expert, our POTUS saw himself fit to rescind the enforcement of DOMA well in advance of a SCOTUS ruling on its constitutionality; whereas in the instant matter he sees himself fit to push for legislation that expressly conflicts with its existing rulings. Under the circumstances, making every firearms transfer subject to Federal supervision, would create a database apt to be exploited in further attempts to infringe the right to keep and bear arms.

Despite all that, as a resident of California long compelled to submit my gun transfers to scrutiny by Big Brother, I could see myself compromising on this matter — but only if I got something in return. Reviving the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011, passed by the House of Representatives in November of 2011, only to be killed in the Senate, would be a good starting point. Time and again, poll after poll has shown that Americans want politicians in Washington to compromise. Where is their compromise on gun rights?

38 thoughts on “legislative intransigence and the politics of compromise”

  1. “What is to be done?”

    “The prevailing understanding of the Second Amendment is

    that it protects an individual right to keep and bear

    those, and only those small arms that are commonly used

    for self-defense and appropriate for service in the

    militia. This is consistent with gun control, e.g. through

    licensing concealed carry of handguns or registering the

    ownership of machine guns.”

    So machineguns are not appropriate small arms for service in the militia?

    “Under the circumstances, making every firearms transfer

    subject to Federal supervision, would create a database

    apt to be exploited in further attempts to infringe the

    right to keep and bear arms.”

    How would making every firearms transfer subject to Federal supervision would create a database apt to be exploited in further attempts to infringe the right to keep and bear arms?

    “Time and again, poll after poll has shown that Americans

    want politicians in Washington to compromise. Where is

    their compromise on gun rights?”

    The link you showed above is from 2011. According to the latest poll from 2013,

    looks like the public wants universal background check on guns, even the folks owning guns.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/07/gun-background-checks_n_2637530.html

    “When the facts changed, they changed their minds. What do you do, ma’am?”

    Indeed, well said.

    Btw. Mr.Zeleny, I had to wait 21 days (I think) to get my first pistol in Oregon back in the 80’s due to background check in Oregon in place.

    I had no problem with it. None of my ‘gun nut’ friends had problem with waiting for a few weeks for background check.

    For background check to be really effective, it has to be at federal level, since mentally ill people not allowed to own firearms can still legally purchase firearms in other states.

    Just in case, where I stand on this issue, if I were a dictator, I would not have problem people owning firearms, even machineguns, grenade launchers, anti-tank, anti-aircraft missiles with no registration.

    But that’s just me. Just because someone disagrees with me on this issue, that doesn’t mean they’re necessarily trying to set up dictatorships.

    1. Re: “What is to be done?”

      How would making every firearms transfer subject to Federal supervision would create a database apt to be exploited in further attempts to infringe the right to keep and bear arms?

      The same way it happened in CA, since we started requiring an FFL intervention in every transfer of a modern firearm.

      1. Re: "What is to be done?"

        “The same way it happened in CA, since we started requiring an FFL intervention in every transfer of a modern firearm.”

        …and I agree. So maybe we should rollback NFA, and GCA? Did and do they not infringe on RKBA as it had existed and existed before?

        People could buy machineguns, suppressors, sawed off shotgun on mail, no FFL, no registration.

        Some criminals started using those as their tool.

        So politicians in their desire to look like they’tre doing something meaningful, stared infringing on RKBA to otherwise law-abiding people, and gun owning public went along with it.

        The gun owning public still thought they had RKBA after these infringement.

        Mr.Zeleny, the continueing infringement on RKBA as it existed before has beern nothing new.

        …and it’s not the end of the world.

        Are NFA and GCA not infringement on RKBA?

        If the pro-gun people oppose universal background check as infringement on RKBA, then why do they not oppose NFA and GCA?

        1. Re: "What is to be done?"

          We have covered this before. My analysis of Heller and its progeny is consistent with regulation that withstands at least an intermediate scrutiny in Constitutional review, but inconsistent with an outright ban of weapons commonly used for self-defense and/or suitable for service in a militia.

          1. Re: "What is to be done?"

            “We have covered this before. My analysis of Heller and its progeny is consistent with regulation that withstands at least an intermediate scrutiny in Constitutional
            review, but inconsistent with an outright ban of weapons commonly used for self-defense and/or suitable for service in a militia.”

            Yes, we have. My contention with you on this is that what you think Obama and some of the anti-gun people are proposing to do is infringement on RKBA due to its effect on commerce, whereas I point out NFA and especially GCA
            also infringed on RKBA due to its effect on commerce as well.

            Your reason against universal background check was that it would infringe on RKBA due to its effect on commerce, it had little to do with the latest SCOTUS ruling, Heller case, etc.

            Below is what you had said ealier;

            “…no counterpart to blanket regulation of private commerce in firearms that is at issue here.

          2. Re: "What is to be done?"

            “We have covered this before. My analysis of Heller and its progeny is consistent with regulation that withstands at least an intermediate scrutiny in Constitutional
            review, but inconsistent with an outright ban of weapons commonly used for self-defense and/or suitable for service in a militia.”

            Yes, we have. My contention with you on this is that what you think Obama and some of the anti-gun people are proposing to do is infringement on RKBA due to its effect on commerce, whereas I point out NFA and especially GCA
            also infringed on RKBA due to its effect on commerce as well.

            Your reason against universal background check was that it would infringe on RKBA due to its effect on commerce, it had little to do with the latest SCOTUS ruling, Heller case, etc.

            Below is what you had said ealier;

            “…no counterpart to blanket regulation of private commerce in firearms that is at issue here.

          3. Re: "What is to be done?"

            “We have covered this before. My analysis of Heller and its progeny is consistent with regulation that withstands at least an intermediate scrutiny in Constitutional
            review, but inconsistent with an outright ban of weapons commonly used for self-defense and/or suitable for service in a militia.”

            Yes, we have. My contention with you on this is that what you think Obama and some of the anti-gun people are proposing to do is infringement on RKBA due to its effect on commerce, whereas I point out NFA and especially GCA
            also infringed on RKBA due to its effect on commerce as well.

            Your reason against universal background check was that it would infringe on RKBA due to its effect on commerce, it had little to do with the latest SCOTUS ruling, Heller case, etc.

            Below is what you had said ealier;

            “…no counterpart to blanket regulation of private commerce in firearms that is at issue here.

          4. Re: "What is to be done?"

            “We have covered this before. My analysis of Heller and its progeny is consistent with regulation that withstands at least an intermediate scrutiny in Constitutional
            review, but inconsistent with an outright ban of weapons commonly used for self-defense and/or suitable for service in a militia.”

            Yes, we have. My contention with you on this is that what you think Obama and some of the anti-gun people are proposing to do is infringement on RKBA due to its effect on commerce, whereas I point out NFA and especially GCA
            also infringed on RKBA due to its effect on commerce as well.

            Your reason against universal background check was that it would infringe on RKBA due to its effect on commerce, it had little to do with the latest SCOTUS ruling, Heller case, etc.

            Below is what you had said ealier;

            “…no counterpart to blanket regulation of private commerce in firearms that is at issue here.

          5. Re: "What is to be done?"

            “We have covered this before. My analysis of Heller and its progeny is consistent with regulation that withstands at least an intermediate scrutiny in Constitutional
            review, but inconsistent with an outright ban of weapons commonly used for self-defense and/or suitable for service in a militia.”

            Yes, we have. My contention with you on this is that what you think Obama and some of the anti-gun people are proposing to do is infringement on RKBA due to its effect on commerce, whereas I point out NFA and especially GCA
            also infringed on RKBA due to its effect on commerce as well.

            Your reason against universal background check was that it would infringe on RKBA due to its effect on commerce, it had little to do with the latest SCOTUS ruling, Heller case, etc.

            Below is what you had said ealier;

            “…no counterpart to blanket regulation of private commerce in firearms that is at issue here.

          6. Re: "What is to be done?"

            “We have covered this before. My analysis of Heller and its progeny is consistent with regulation that withstands at least an intermediate scrutiny in Constitutional
            review, but inconsistent with an outright ban of weapons commonly used for self-defense and/or suitable for service in a militia.”

            Yes, we have. My contention with you on this is that what you think Obama and some of the anti-gun people are proposing to do is infringement on RKBA due to its effect on commerce, whereas I point out NFA and especially GCA
            also infringed on RKBA due to its effect on commerce as well.

            Your reason against universal background check was that it would infringe on RKBA due to its effect on commerce, it had little to do with the latest SCOTUS ruling, Heller case, etc.

            Below is what you had said ealier;

            “…no counterpart to blanket regulation of private commerce in firearms that is at issue here.

          7. Re: "What is to be done?"

            “We have covered this before. My analysis of Heller and its progeny is consistent with regulation that withstands at least an intermediate scrutiny in Constitutional
            review, but inconsistent with an outright ban of weapons commonly used for self-defense and/or suitable for service in a militia.”

            Yes, we have. My contention with you on this is that what you think Obama and some of the anti-gun people are proposing to do is infringement on RKBA due to its effect on commerce, whereas I point out NFA and especially GCA
            also infringed on RKBA due to its effect on commerce as well.

            Your reason against universal background check was that it would infringe on RKBA due to its effect on commerce, it had little to do with the latest SCOTUS ruling, Heller case, etc.

            Below is what you had said ealier;

            “…no counterpart to blanket regulation of private commerce in firearms that is at issue here.

          8. Re: "What is to be done?"

            “We have covered this before. My analysis of Heller and its progeny is consistent with regulation that withstands at least an intermediate scrutiny in Constitutional
            review, but inconsistent with an outright ban of weapons commonly used for self-defense and/or suitable for service in a militia.”

            Yes, we have. My contention with you on this is that what you think Obama and some of the anti-gun people are proposing to do is infringement on RKBA due to its effect on commerce, whereas I point out NFA and especially GCA
            also infringed on RKBA due to its effect on commerce as well.

            Your reason against universal background check was that it would infringe on RKBA due to its effect on commerce, it had little to do with the latest SCOTUS ruling, Heller case, etc.

            Below is what you had said ealier;

            “…no counterpart to blanket regulation of private commerce in firearms that is at issue here.

          9. Re: "What is to be done?"

            “We have covered this before. My analysis of Heller and its progeny is consistent with regulation that withstands at least an intermediate scrutiny in Constitutional
            review, but inconsistent with an outright ban of weapons commonly used for self-defense and/or suitable for service in a militia.”

            Yes, we have. My contention with you on this is that what you think Obama and some of the anti-gun people are proposing to do is infringement on RKBA due to its effect on commerce, whereas I point out NFA and especially GCA
            also infringed on RKBA due to its effect on commerce as well.

            Your reason against universal background check was that it would infringe on RKBA due to its effect on commerce, it had little to do with the latest SCOTUS ruling, Heller case, etc.

            Below is what you had said ealier;

            “…no counterpart to blanket regulation of private commerce in firearms that is at issue here.

          10. Re: "What is to be done?"

            “We have covered this before. My analysis of Heller and its progeny is consistent with regulation that withstands at least an intermediate scrutiny in Constitutional
            review, but inconsistent with an outright ban of weapons commonly used for self-defense and/or suitable for service in a militia.”

            Yes, we have. My contention with you on this is that what you think Obama and some of the anti-gun people are proposing to do is infringement on RKBA due to its effect on commerce, whereas I point out NFA and especially GCA
            also infringed on RKBA due to its effect on commerce as well.

            Your reason against universal background check was that it would infringe on RKBA due to its effect on commerce, it had little to do with the latest SCOTUS ruling, Heller case, etc.

            Below is what you had said ealier;

            “…no counterpart to blanket regulation of private commerce in firearms that is at issue here.

        2. Re: "What is to be done?"

          We have covered this before. My analysis of Heller and its progeny is consistent with regulation that withstands at least an intermediate scrutiny in Constitutional review, but inconsistent with an outright ban of weapons commonly used for self-defense and/or suitable for service in a militia.

        3. Re: "What is to be done?"

          We have covered this before. My analysis of Heller and its progeny is consistent with regulation that withstands at least an intermediate scrutiny in Constitutional review, but inconsistent with an outright ban of weapons commonly used for self-defense and/or suitable for service in a militia.

        4. Re: "What is to be done?"

          We have covered this before. My analysis of Heller and its progeny is consistent with regulation that withstands at least an intermediate scrutiny in Constitutional review, but inconsistent with an outright ban of weapons commonly used for self-defense and/or suitable for service in a militia.

        5. Re: "What is to be done?"

          We have covered this before. My analysis of Heller and its progeny is consistent with regulation that withstands at least an intermediate scrutiny in Constitutional review, but inconsistent with an outright ban of weapons commonly used for self-defense and/or suitable for service in a militia.

        6. Re: "What is to be done?"

          We have covered this before. My analysis of Heller and its progeny is consistent with regulation that withstands at least an intermediate scrutiny in Constitutional review, but inconsistent with an outright ban of weapons commonly used for self-defense and/or suitable for service in a militia.

        7. Re: "What is to be done?"

          We have covered this before. My analysis of Heller and its progeny is consistent with regulation that withstands at least an intermediate scrutiny in Constitutional review, but inconsistent with an outright ban of weapons commonly used for self-defense and/or suitable for service in a militia.

        8. Re: "What is to be done?"

          We have covered this before. My analysis of Heller and its progeny is consistent with regulation that withstands at least an intermediate scrutiny in Constitutional review, but inconsistent with an outright ban of weapons commonly used for self-defense and/or suitable for service in a militia.

      2. Re: "What is to be done?"

        “The same way it happened in CA, since we started requiring an FFL intervention in every transfer of a modern firearm.”

        …and I agree. So maybe we should rollback NFA, and GCA? Did and do they not infringe on RKBA as it had existed and existed before?

        People could buy machineguns, suppressors, sawed off shotgun on mail, no FFL, no registration.

        Some criminals started using those as their tool.

        So politicians in their desire to look like they’tre doing something meaningful, stared infringing on RKBA to otherwise law-abiding people, and gun owning public went along with it.

        The gun owning public still thought they had RKBA after these infringement.

        Mr.Zeleny, the continueing infringement on RKBA as it existed before has beern nothing new.

        …and it’s not the end of the world.

        Are NFA and GCA not infringement on RKBA?

        If the pro-gun people oppose universal background check as infringement on RKBA, then why do they not oppose NFA and GCA?

      3. Re: "What is to be done?"

        “The same way it happened in CA, since we started requiring an FFL intervention in every transfer of a modern firearm.”

        …and I agree. So maybe we should rollback NFA, and GCA? Did and do they not infringe on RKBA as it had existed and existed before?

        People could buy machineguns, suppressors, sawed off shotgun on mail, no FFL, no registration.

        Some criminals started using those as their tool.

        So politicians in their desire to look like they’tre doing something meaningful, stared infringing on RKBA to otherwise law-abiding people, and gun owning public went along with it.

        The gun owning public still thought they had RKBA after these infringement.

        Mr.Zeleny, the continueing infringement on RKBA as it existed before has beern nothing new.

        …and it’s not the end of the world.

        Are NFA and GCA not infringement on RKBA?

        If the pro-gun people oppose universal background check as infringement on RKBA, then why do they not oppose NFA and GCA?

      4. Re: "What is to be done?"

        “The same way it happened in CA, since we started requiring an FFL intervention in every transfer of a modern firearm.”

        …and I agree. So maybe we should rollback NFA, and GCA? Did and do they not infringe on RKBA as it had existed and existed before?

        People could buy machineguns, suppressors, sawed off shotgun on mail, no FFL, no registration.

        Some criminals started using those as their tool.

        So politicians in their desire to look like they’tre doing something meaningful, stared infringing on RKBA to otherwise law-abiding people, and gun owning public went along with it.

        The gun owning public still thought they had RKBA after these infringement.

        Mr.Zeleny, the continueing infringement on RKBA as it existed before has beern nothing new.

        …and it’s not the end of the world.

        Are NFA and GCA not infringement on RKBA?

        If the pro-gun people oppose universal background check as infringement on RKBA, then why do they not oppose NFA and GCA?

      5. Re: "What is to be done?"

        “The same way it happened in CA, since we started requiring an FFL intervention in every transfer of a modern firearm.”

        …and I agree. So maybe we should rollback NFA, and GCA? Did and do they not infringe on RKBA as it had existed and existed before?

        People could buy machineguns, suppressors, sawed off shotgun on mail, no FFL, no registration.

        Some criminals started using those as their tool.

        So politicians in their desire to look like they’tre doing something meaningful, stared infringing on RKBA to otherwise law-abiding people, and gun owning public went along with it.

        The gun owning public still thought they had RKBA after these infringement.

        Mr.Zeleny, the continueing infringement on RKBA as it existed before has beern nothing new.

        …and it’s not the end of the world.

        Are NFA and GCA not infringement on RKBA?

        If the pro-gun people oppose universal background check as infringement on RKBA, then why do they not oppose NFA and GCA?

      6. Re: "What is to be done?"

        “The same way it happened in CA, since we started requiring an FFL intervention in every transfer of a modern firearm.”

        …and I agree. So maybe we should rollback NFA, and GCA? Did and do they not infringe on RKBA as it had existed and existed before?

        People could buy machineguns, suppressors, sawed off shotgun on mail, no FFL, no registration.

        Some criminals started using those as their tool.

        So politicians in their desire to look like they’tre doing something meaningful, stared infringing on RKBA to otherwise law-abiding people, and gun owning public went along with it.

        The gun owning public still thought they had RKBA after these infringement.

        Mr.Zeleny, the continueing infringement on RKBA as it existed before has beern nothing new.

        …and it’s not the end of the world.

        Are NFA and GCA not infringement on RKBA?

        If the pro-gun people oppose universal background check as infringement on RKBA, then why do they not oppose NFA and GCA?

      7. Re: "What is to be done?"

        “The same way it happened in CA, since we started requiring an FFL intervention in every transfer of a modern firearm.”

        …and I agree. So maybe we should rollback NFA, and GCA? Did and do they not infringe on RKBA as it had existed and existed before?

        People could buy machineguns, suppressors, sawed off shotgun on mail, no FFL, no registration.

        Some criminals started using those as their tool.

        So politicians in their desire to look like they’tre doing something meaningful, stared infringing on RKBA to otherwise law-abiding people, and gun owning public went along with it.

        The gun owning public still thought they had RKBA after these infringement.

        Mr.Zeleny, the continueing infringement on RKBA as it existed before has beern nothing new.

        …and it’s not the end of the world.

        Are NFA and GCA not infringement on RKBA?

        If the pro-gun people oppose universal background check as infringement on RKBA, then why do they not oppose NFA and GCA?

    2. Re: “What is to be done?”

      How would making every firearms transfer subject to Federal supervision would create a database apt to be exploited in further attempts to infringe the right to keep and bear arms?

      The same way it happened in CA, since we started requiring an FFL intervention in every transfer of a modern firearm.

    3. Re: “What is to be done?”

      How would making every firearms transfer subject to Federal supervision would create a database apt to be exploited in further attempts to infringe the right to keep and bear arms?

      The same way it happened in CA, since we started requiring an FFL intervention in every transfer of a modern firearm.

  2. Wayne Lapierre’s ‘reason’………….

    “Barack Obama was against gay marriage before he became all

    for it. Wayne La Pierre was in favor of legislation

    mandating background checks for private party gun sales

    before he became all against it. When the facts changed,

    they changed their minds. What do you do, ma’am?

    The main fact that has changed in the fourteen years since

    Wayne LaPierre spoke in favor of mandatory background

    checks for private firearm sales, is the recognition by

    the SCOTUS of the right to keep and bear arms as

    fundamental and Constitutionally protected.”

    There’s a problem as you stated for the ‘reason’ for Wayne LaPierre’s flip flop. LaPierre didn’t use SCOTUS as his reason for flip flop.

    According to LaPierre, it’s because the criminals are not going to go through the background check, therefore the background check only inconviences law abiding people.

    The logical fallacy of that argument is like a hypothetical reasoning that the criminals who commit financial fraud are not going to obey the law, therefore all these regulations regarding the financial fraud only inconvinences law abiding people, since enforcing the regulation would create enormous federal workforce that would tax the little people.

    Therefore we should do away with the finanical regulations.

    “But, in this week’s hearings, one of the more contentious topics was whether or not the NRA supports universal background checks and closing the gun show loophole. “My problem with background checks is you are never going to get criminals to go through universal background checks.

    And all the law-abiding people, you’ll create an enormous federal bureaucracy, unfunded, hitting all the little people in the country, will have to go through it, pay the fees, pay the taxes,” LaPierre told the Senate Judiciary Committee.”

    http://www.salon.com/2013/02/01/nra_once_supported_universal_background_checks/

    1. Re: Wayne Lapierre’s ‘reason’………….

      I have a lot of affinity with, but very little affection for, the NRA. But in this matter, they are on the right side of the political debate. Your analogy fails because financial fraud is prosecuted only after the fact, conceivable indictments for conspiracy notwithstanding. We have no PreCrime law enforcement to forestall fraud, no counterpart to blanket regulation of private commerce in firearms that is at issue here. Besides, as I suggested elsewhere, Justice Roberts’ reading of the Commerce Clause in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, 567 U.S. ___ (2012), may well have tolled the death knell for Federal regulations of this sort.

      1. Re: Wayne Lapierre's 'reason'………….

        “Wayne La Pierre was in favor of legislation

        mandating background checks for private party gun sales

        before he became all against it. When the facts changed,

        they changed their minds. What do you do, ma’am?

        The main fact that has changed in the fourteen years since

        Wayne LaPierre spoke in favor of mandatory background

        checks for private firearm sales, is the recognition by

        the SCOTUS of the right to keep and bear arms as

        fundamental and Constitutionally protected.”

        According to what you had written earlier, the change in SCOTUS ruling was the reason why Wayne LaPierre changed his view on universal background check.

        But according to Wayne LaPierre, he did not attribute it to the latest change in SCOTUS ruling at all.

        “But, in this week’s hearings, one of the more contentious topics was whether or not the NRA supports universal background checks and closing the gun show loophole. “My problem with background checks is you are never going to get criminals to go through universal background checks. And all the law-abiding people, you’ll create an enormous federal bureaucracy, unfunded, hitting all the little people in the country, will have to go through it, pay the fees, pay the taxes,” LaPierre told the Senate Judiciary Committee.”

        http://www.salon.com/2013/02/01/nra_once_supported_universal_background_checks/

        Which part of Wayne LaPierre’s reason has anything to do with the latest ruling on SCOTUS?

        Mr.Zeleny, if you agree with Wayne LaPierre’s reason for changing his view on universal background check, then go for it, but attributing it to the latest SCOTUS ruling doesn’t make the case.

        “Your analogy fails because financial fraud is prosecuted only after the fact, conceivable indictments for conspiracy notwithstanding.”

        So people get prosecuted before violating the gun laws?

        Are you implying people get prosecuted before violating the laws outside the financial domain?

        If not, then how can my analogy fail?

        “We have no PreCrime law enforcement to forestall fraud
        ….”

        Yes, we do, and that is called, financial
        regulation.

        Security Exchange commision has been doing this for decades to forestall stock manipulation.

        “…no counterpart to blanket regulation of private

        commerce in firearms that is at issue here.”

        Mr.Zeleny, ‘blanket regulation of private commerce in firearms’ of the sort you’re talking about had already been done with the support
        from gun manufacturers no less.

        Before GCA, people could buy guns on mail with
        no FFL.

        Now, Michael, personally I would have no problem if we could do away with GCA, just letting you know where I stand on the issue, but let’s not confuse what we wish with what is, and has been.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_Control_Act_of1968

        “Besides, as I suggested elsewhere, Justice Roberts’ reading of the Commerce Clause in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, 567 U.S. ___ (2012), may well have tolled the death knell for Federal regulations
        of this sort.”

        Hmmm, not really. What Justice Roberts said regarding the Commerce Clause was with the Congress regulating individuals precisely because they are doing NOTHING.

        On universal background check, they are BUYING guns.

        Would you consider it as doing NOTHING?

        “Construing the Commerce Clause to permit Congress to regulate individuals precisely because they are doing nothing would open a new and potentially vast domain to congressional authority.

        Congress already possesses expansive power to regulate what people do.

        Upholding the Affordable Care Act under the Commerce Clausewould give Congress the same license to regulate what people do not do.

        The Framers knew the difference between doing
        something and doing nothing. They gave Congress the power to regulate commerce, not to compel it.” – From Justice Roberts’ take on the Commerce Clause on the link you provided.

        Wow, what a debate! You’re a worthy ‘opponent’,(much better than ‘typical’ nutjobs on gun forums) you certainly put extra wrinkles on my brain.

      2. Re: Wayne Lapierre's 'reason'………….

        “Wayne La Pierre was in favor of legislation

        mandating background checks for private party gun sales

        before he became all against it. When the facts changed,

        they changed their minds. What do you do, ma’am?

        The main fact that has changed in the fourteen years since

        Wayne LaPierre spoke in favor of mandatory background

        checks for private firearm sales, is the recognition by

        the SCOTUS of the right to keep and bear arms as

        fundamental and Constitutionally protected.”

        According to what you had written earlier, the change in SCOTUS ruling was the reason why Wayne LaPierre changed his view on universal background check.

        But according to Wayne LaPierre, he did not attribute it to the latest change in SCOTUS ruling at all.

        “But, in this week’s hearings, one of the more contentious topics was whether or not the NRA supports universal background checks and closing the gun show loophole. “My problem with background checks is you are never going to get criminals to go through universal background checks. And all the law-abiding people, you’ll create an enormous federal bureaucracy, unfunded, hitting all the little people in the country, will have to go through it, pay the fees, pay the taxes,” LaPierre told the Senate Judiciary Committee.”

        http://www.salon.com/2013/02/01/nra_once_supported_universal_background_checks/

        Which part of Wayne LaPierre’s reason has anything to do with the latest ruling on SCOTUS?

        Mr.Zeleny, if you agree with Wayne LaPierre’s reason for changing his view on universal background check, then go for it, but attributing it to the latest SCOTUS ruling doesn’t make the case.

        “Your analogy fails because financial fraud is prosecuted only after the fact, conceivable indictments for conspiracy notwithstanding.”

        So people get prosecuted before violating the gun laws?

        Are you implying people get prosecuted before violating the laws outside the financial domain?

        If not, then how can my analogy fail?

        “We have no PreCrime law enforcement to forestall fraud
        ….”

        Yes, we do, and that is called, financial
        regulation.

        Security Exchange commision has been doing this for decades to forestall stock manipulation.

        “…no counterpart to blanket regulation of private

        commerce in firearms that is at issue here.”

        Mr.Zeleny, ‘blanket regulation of private commerce in firearms’ of the sort you’re talking about had already been done with the support
        from gun manufacturers no less.

        Before GCA, people could buy guns on mail with
        no FFL.

        Now, Michael, personally I would have no problem if we could do away with GCA, just letting you know where I stand on the issue, but let’s not confuse what we wish with what is, and has been.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_Control_Act_of1968

        “Besides, as I suggested elsewhere, Justice Roberts’ reading of the Commerce Clause in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, 567 U.S. ___ (2012), may well have tolled the death knell for Federal regulations
        of this sort.”

        Hmmm, not really. What Justice Roberts said regarding the Commerce Clause was with the Congress regulating individuals precisely because they are doing NOTHING.

        On universal background check, they are BUYING guns.

        Would you consider it as doing NOTHING?

        “Construing the Commerce Clause to permit Congress to regulate individuals precisely because they are doing nothing would open a new and potentially vast domain to congressional authority.

        Congress already possesses expansive power to regulate what people do.

        Upholding the Affordable Care Act under the Commerce Clausewould give Congress the same license to regulate what people do not do.

        The Framers knew the difference between doing
        something and doing nothing. They gave Congress the power to regulate commerce, not to compel it.” – From Justice Roberts’ take on the Commerce Clause on the link you provided.

        Wow, what a debate! You’re a worthy ‘opponent’,(much better than ‘typical’ nutjobs on gun forums) you certainly put extra wrinkles on my brain.

      3. Re: Wayne Lapierre's 'reason'………….

        “Wayne La Pierre was in favor of legislation

        mandating background checks for private party gun sales

        before he became all against it. When the facts changed,

        they changed their minds. What do you do, ma’am?

        The main fact that has changed in the fourteen years since

        Wayne LaPierre spoke in favor of mandatory background

        checks for private firearm sales, is the recognition by

        the SCOTUS of the right to keep and bear arms as

        fundamental and Constitutionally protected.”

        According to what you had written earlier, the change in SCOTUS ruling was the reason why Wayne LaPierre changed his view on universal background check.

        But according to Wayne LaPierre, he did not attribute it to the latest change in SCOTUS ruling at all.

        “But, in this week’s hearings, one of the more contentious topics was whether or not the NRA supports universal background checks and closing the gun show loophole. “My problem with background checks is you are never going to get criminals to go through universal background checks. And all the law-abiding people, you’ll create an enormous federal bureaucracy, unfunded, hitting all the little people in the country, will have to go through it, pay the fees, pay the taxes,” LaPierre told the Senate Judiciary Committee.”

        http://www.salon.com/2013/02/01/nra_once_supported_universal_background_checks/

        Which part of Wayne LaPierre’s reason has anything to do with the latest ruling on SCOTUS?

        Mr.Zeleny, if you agree with Wayne LaPierre’s reason for changing his view on universal background check, then go for it, but attributing it to the latest SCOTUS ruling doesn’t make the case.

        “Your analogy fails because financial fraud is prosecuted only after the fact, conceivable indictments for conspiracy notwithstanding.”

        So people get prosecuted before violating the gun laws?

        Are you implying people get prosecuted before violating the laws outside the financial domain?

        If not, then how can my analogy fail?

        “We have no PreCrime law enforcement to forestall fraud
        ….”

        Yes, we do, and that is called, financial
        regulation.

        Security Exchange commision has been doing this for decades to forestall stock manipulation.

        “…no counterpart to blanket regulation of private

        commerce in firearms that is at issue here.”

        Mr.Zeleny, ‘blanket regulation of private commerce in firearms’ of the sort you’re talking about had already been done with the support
        from gun manufacturers no less.

        Before GCA, people could buy guns on mail with
        no FFL.

        Now, Michael, personally I would have no problem if we could do away with GCA, just letting you know where I stand on the issue, but let’s not confuse what we wish with what is, and has been.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_Control_Act_of1968

        “Besides, as I suggested elsewhere, Justice Roberts’ reading of the Commerce Clause in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, 567 U.S. ___ (2012), may well have tolled the death knell for Federal regulations
        of this sort.”

        Hmmm, not really. What Justice Roberts said regarding the Commerce Clause was with the Congress regulating individuals precisely because they are doing NOTHING.

        On universal background check, they are BUYING guns.

        Would you consider it as doing NOTHING?

        “Construing the Commerce Clause to permit Congress to regulate individuals precisely because they are doing nothing would open a new and potentially vast domain to congressional authority.

        Congress already possesses expansive power to regulate what people do.

        Upholding the Affordable Care Act under the Commerce Clausewould give Congress the same license to regulate what people do not do.

        The Framers knew the difference between doing
        something and doing nothing. They gave Congress the power to regulate commerce, not to compel it.” – From Justice Roberts’ take on the Commerce Clause on the link you provided.

        Wow, what a debate! You’re a worthy ‘opponent’,(much better than ‘typical’ nutjobs on gun forums) you certainly put extra wrinkles on my brain.

      4. Re: Wayne Lapierre's 'reason'………….

        “Wayne La Pierre was in favor of legislation

        mandating background checks for private party gun sales

        before he became all against it. When the facts changed,

        they changed their minds. What do you do, ma’am?

        The main fact that has changed in the fourteen years since

        Wayne LaPierre spoke in favor of mandatory background

        checks for private firearm sales, is the recognition by

        the SCOTUS of the right to keep and bear arms as

        fundamental and Constitutionally protected.”

        According to what you had written earlier, the change in SCOTUS ruling was the reason why Wayne LaPierre changed his view on universal background check.

        But according to Wayne LaPierre, he did not attribute it to the latest change in SCOTUS ruling at all.

        “But, in this week’s hearings, one of the more contentious topics was whether or not the NRA supports universal background checks and closing the gun show loophole. “My problem with background checks is you are never going to get criminals to go through universal background checks. And all the law-abiding people, you’ll create an enormous federal bureaucracy, unfunded, hitting all the little people in the country, will have to go through it, pay the fees, pay the taxes,” LaPierre told the Senate Judiciary Committee.”

        http://www.salon.com/2013/02/01/nra_once_supported_universal_background_checks/

        Which part of Wayne LaPierre’s reason has anything to do with the latest ruling on SCOTUS?

        Mr.Zeleny, if you agree with Wayne LaPierre’s reason for changing his view on universal background check, then go for it, but attributing it to the latest SCOTUS ruling doesn’t make the case.

        “Your analogy fails because financial fraud is prosecuted only after the fact, conceivable indictments for conspiracy notwithstanding.”

        So people get prosecuted before violating the gun laws?

        Are you implying people get prosecuted before violating the laws outside the financial domain?

        If not, then how can my analogy fail?

        “We have no PreCrime law enforcement to forestall fraud
        ….”

        Yes, we do, and that is called, financial
        regulation.

        Security Exchange commision has been doing this for decades to forestall stock manipulation.

        “…no counterpart to blanket regulation of private

        commerce in firearms that is at issue here.”

        Mr.Zeleny, ‘blanket regulation of private commerce in firearms’ of the sort you’re talking about had already been done with the support
        from gun manufacturers no less.

        Before GCA, people could buy guns on mail with
        no FFL.

        Now, Michael, personally I would have no problem if we could do away with GCA, just letting you know where I stand on the issue, but let’s not confuse what we wish with what is, and has been.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_Control_Act_of1968

        “Besides, as I suggested elsewhere, Justice Roberts’ reading of the Commerce Clause in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, 567 U.S. ___ (2012), may well have tolled the death knell for Federal regulations
        of this sort.”

        Hmmm, not really. What Justice Roberts said regarding the Commerce Clause was with the Congress regulating individuals precisely because they are doing NOTHING.

        On universal background check, they are BUYING guns.

        Would you consider it as doing NOTHING?

        “Construing the Commerce Clause to permit Congress to regulate individuals precisely because they are doing nothing would open a new and potentially vast domain to congressional authority.

        Congress already possesses expansive power to regulate what people do.

        Upholding the Affordable Care Act under the Commerce Clausewould give Congress the same license to regulate what people do not do.

        The Framers knew the difference between doing
        something and doing nothing. They gave Congress the power to regulate commerce, not to compel it.” – From Justice Roberts’ take on the Commerce Clause on the link you provided.

        Wow, what a debate! You’re a worthy ‘opponent’,(much better than ‘typical’ nutjobs on gun forums) you certainly put extra wrinkles on my brain.

      5. Re: Wayne Lapierre's 'reason'………….

        “Wayne La Pierre was in favor of legislation

        mandating background checks for private party gun sales

        before he became all against it. When the facts changed,

        they changed their minds. What do you do, ma’am?

        The main fact that has changed in the fourteen years since

        Wayne LaPierre spoke in favor of mandatory background

        checks for private firearm sales, is the recognition by

        the SCOTUS of the right to keep and bear arms as

        fundamental and Constitutionally protected.”

        According to what you had written earlier, the change in SCOTUS ruling was the reason why Wayne LaPierre changed his view on universal background check.

        But according to Wayne LaPierre, he did not attribute it to the latest change in SCOTUS ruling at all.

        “But, in this week’s hearings, one of the more contentious topics was whether or not the NRA supports universal background checks and closing the gun show loophole. “My problem with background checks is you are never going to get criminals to go through universal background checks. And all the law-abiding people, you’ll create an enormous federal bureaucracy, unfunded, hitting all the little people in the country, will have to go through it, pay the fees, pay the taxes,” LaPierre told the Senate Judiciary Committee.”

        http://www.salon.com/2013/02/01/nra_once_supported_universal_background_checks/

        Which part of Wayne LaPierre’s reason has anything to do with the latest ruling on SCOTUS?

        Mr.Zeleny, if you agree with Wayne LaPierre’s reason for changing his view on universal background check, then go for it, but attributing it to the latest SCOTUS ruling doesn’t make the case.

        “Your analogy fails because financial fraud is prosecuted only after the fact, conceivable indictments for conspiracy notwithstanding.”

        So people get prosecuted before violating the gun laws?

        Are you implying people get prosecuted before violating the laws outside the financial domain?

        If not, then how can my analogy fail?

        “We have no PreCrime law enforcement to forestall fraud
        ….”

        Yes, we do, and that is called, financial
        regulation.

        Security Exchange commision has been doing this for decades to forestall stock manipulation.

        “…no counterpart to blanket regulation of private

        commerce in firearms that is at issue here.”

        Mr.Zeleny, ‘blanket regulation of private commerce in firearms’ of the sort you’re talking about had already been done with the support
        from gun manufacturers no less.

        Before GCA, people could buy guns on mail with
        no FFL.

        Now, Michael, personally I would have no problem if we could do away with GCA, just letting you know where I stand on the issue, but let’s not confuse what we wish with what is, and has been.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_Control_Act_of1968

        “Besides, as I suggested elsewhere, Justice Roberts’ reading of the Commerce Clause in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, 567 U.S. ___ (2012), may well have tolled the death knell for Federal regulations
        of this sort.”

        Hmmm, not really. What Justice Roberts said regarding the Commerce Clause was with the Congress regulating individuals precisely because they are doing NOTHING.

        On universal background check, they are BUYING guns.

        Would you consider it as doing NOTHING?

        “Construing the Commerce Clause to permit Congress to regulate individuals precisely because they are doing nothing would open a new and potentially vast domain to congressional authority.

        Congress already possesses expansive power to regulate what people do.

        Upholding the Affordable Care Act under the Commerce Clausewould give Congress the same license to regulate what people do not do.

        The Framers knew the difference between doing
        something and doing nothing. They gave Congress the power to regulate commerce, not to compel it.” – From Justice Roberts’ take on the Commerce Clause on the link you provided.

        Wow, what a debate! You’re a worthy ‘opponent’,(much better than ‘typical’ nutjobs on gun forums) you certainly put extra wrinkles on my brain.

      6. Re: Wayne Lapierre's 'reason'………….

        “Wayne La Pierre was in favor of legislation

        mandating background checks for private party gun sales

        before he became all against it. When the facts changed,

        they changed their minds. What do you do, ma’am?

        The main fact that has changed in the fourteen years since

        Wayne LaPierre spoke in favor of mandatory background

        checks for private firearm sales, is the recognition by

        the SCOTUS of the right to keep and bear arms as

        fundamental and Constitutionally protected.”

        According to what you had written earlier, the change in SCOTUS ruling was the reason why Wayne LaPierre changed his view on universal background check.

        But according to Wayne LaPierre, he did not attribute it to the latest change in SCOTUS ruling at all.

        “But, in this week’s hearings, one of the more contentious topics was whether or not the NRA supports universal background checks and closing the gun show loophole. “My problem with background checks is you are never going to get criminals to go through universal background checks. And all the law-abiding people, you’ll create an enormous federal bureaucracy, unfunded, hitting all the little people in the country, will have to go through it, pay the fees, pay the taxes,” LaPierre told the Senate Judiciary Committee.”

        http://www.salon.com/2013/02/01/nra_once_supported_universal_background_checks/

        Which part of Wayne LaPierre’s reason has anything to do with the latest ruling on SCOTUS?

        Mr.Zeleny, if you agree with Wayne LaPierre’s reason for changing his view on universal background check, then go for it, but attributing it to the latest SCOTUS ruling doesn’t make the case.

        “Your analogy fails because financial fraud is prosecuted only after the fact, conceivable indictments for conspiracy notwithstanding.”

        So people get prosecuted before violating the gun laws?

        Are you implying people get prosecuted before violating the laws outside the financial domain?

        If not, then how can my analogy fail?

        “We have no PreCrime law enforcement to forestall fraud
        ….”

        Yes, we do, and that is called, financial
        regulation.

        Security Exchange commision has been doing this for decades to forestall stock manipulation.

        “…no counterpart to blanket regulation of private

        commerce in firearms that is at issue here.”

        Mr.Zeleny, ‘blanket regulation of private commerce in firearms’ of the sort you’re talking about had already been done with the support
        from gun manufacturers no less.

        Before GCA, people could buy guns on mail with
        no FFL.

        Now, Michael, personally I would have no problem if we could do away with GCA, just letting you know where I stand on the issue, but let’s not confuse what we wish with what is, and has been.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_Control_Act_of1968

        “Besides, as I suggested elsewhere, Justice Roberts’ reading of the Commerce Clause in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, 567 U.S. ___ (2012), may well have tolled the death knell for Federal regulations
        of this sort.”

        Hmmm, not really. What Justice Roberts said regarding the Commerce Clause was with the Congress regulating individuals precisely because they are doing NOTHING.

        On universal background check, they are BUYING guns.

        Would you consider it as doing NOTHING?

        “Construing the Commerce Clause to permit Congress to regulate individuals precisely because they are doing nothing would open a new and potentially vast domain to congressional authority.

        Congress already possesses expansive power to regulate what people do.

        Upholding the Affordable Care Act under the Commerce Clausewould give Congress the same license to regulate what people do not do.

        The Framers knew the difference between doing
        something and doing nothing. They gave Congress the power to regulate commerce, not to compel it.” – From Justice Roberts’ take on the Commerce Clause on the link you provided.

        Wow, what a debate! You’re a worthy ‘opponent’,(much better than ‘typical’ nutjobs on gun forums) you certainly put extra wrinkles on my brain.

    2. Re: Wayne Lapierre’s ‘reason’………….

      I have a lot of affinity with, but very little affection for, the NRA. But in this matter, they are on the right side of the political debate. Your analogy fails because financial fraud is prosecuted only after the fact, conceivable indictments for conspiracy notwithstanding. We have no PreCrime law enforcement to forestall fraud, no counterpart to blanket regulation of private commerce in firearms that is at issue here. Besides, as I suggested elsewhere, Justice Roberts’ reading of the Commerce Clause in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, 567 U.S. ___ (2012), may well have tolled the death knell for Federal regulations of this sort.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *