Gun Violence Tracker (3 Viewers)

[Old State]

You answered your own question.

So you believe that any action taken by the government that could assist in later unconstitutional action is itself unconstitutional?

Fundamentally, yes. I don't care what case law you plan on refferencing in response.

I also believe that the 17th Amendement is fundimentally and theoretically unconstitutional despite the fact it is obvioulsly part of the Constituion now. I believe this because it runs contrary to the basic tenets of entire document.

I have argued with far left progressives who refuse or can not understand that. I think it's more that they refuse while pretending to not understand it to be cute.

 

[jbutler]

So you believe that any action taken by the government that could assist in later unconstitutional action is itself unconstitutional?

Fundamentally, yes. I don't care what case law you plan on refferencing in response.

How far back do you go in the chain of events that assist in the ultimate unconstitutional act?

Running a background check creates records that could later be digitized and cataloged to assist in the creation of a national registry. Are background checks therefore unconstitutional because they could later be used in the creation of the registry?

 

[Old State]

How far back do you go in the chain of events that assist in the ultimate unconstitutional act?

Running a background check creates records that could later be digitized and cataloged to assist in the creation of a national registry. Are background checks therefore unconstitutional because they could later be used in the creation of the registry?

Well, legally they are not to be kept. We established that.

 

[jbutler]

Well, legally they are not to be kept. We established that.

Are you trying to say that the law prevents retention of the record of a background checks or that all records of sale are prohibited from being retained?

 

[Old State]

You are just getting tedious. You can read the law yourself

 

[jbutler]

You are just getting tedious again

I asked a question and instead of answering you made a statement. I'm trying to get to the nub of the problem. Let's sidestep the background check information if you prefer.

When a vendor sells a gun they are required by law to retain records of the sale indefinitely. Those records could later be used to assist in the creation of a national registry. Is it unconstitutional, then, to require that vendors maintain records of gun sales that identify the purchaser?

 

[Old State]

I asked a question and instead of answering you made a statement. I'm trying to get to the nub of the problem. Let's sidestep the background check information if you prefer.

When a vendor sells a gun they are required by law to retain records of the sale indefinitely. Those records could later be used to assist in the creation of a national registry. Is it unconstitutional, then, to require that vendors maintain records of gun sales that identify the purchaser?

Again, read the law yourself

 

[jbutler]

Again, read the law yourself

The law provides that the records must be kept.

But my question is about your opinion. When I asked if "any action taken by the government that could assist in later unconstitutional action is itself unconstitutional," you responded, "Fundamentally, yes."

So I'm asking you if you consider laws requiring retention of sales records unconstitutional.

 

[dew4au]

I guess this is where we find the disagreement again. One is already required to fill out forms to purchase guns in the first place. Under a registration regime, the government would simply require the vendor to send those forms for processing by a national firearms registry. I don't see how this could even arguably be called a "significant burden".

True, the collection of existing forms as registration could pass today using intermediate scrutiny, as stated in Heller III. However, that same case also outlines why the registration system would be ineffective. Mandatory re-registration every three years can't pass intermediate scrutiny. The whole system starts to beak down if you can't keep it current. Again that leads back to high cost, questionable burden, and dubious effectiveness.

Consider the same issue of registration using strict scrutiny, and I believe it would not pass. I believe any right labeled as "fundamental" should automatically trigger strict scrutiny.

And therein lies the problem. The SCOTUS left the barn door open for the lower courts to determine the level of scrutiny with Heller I. Most have been intermediate, some have been strict.

Put me down for team strict

 

[Old State]

The law provides that the records must be kept.

But my question is about your opinion. When I asked if "any action taken by the government that could assist in later unconstitutional action is itself unconstitutional," you responded, "Fundamentally, yes."

So I'm asking you if you consider laws requiring retention of sales records unconstitutional.

Read the law first

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/926

 

[jbutler]

True, the collection of existing forms as registration could pass today using intermediate scrutiny, as stated in Heller III. However, that same case also outlines why the registration system would be ineffective. Mandatory re-registration every three years can't pass intermediate scrutiny. The whole system starts to beak down if you can't keep it current. Again that leads back to high cost, questionable burden, and dubious effectiveness.

Consider the same issue of registration using strict scrutiny, and I believe it would not pass. I believe any right labeled as "fundamental" should automatically trigger strict scrutiny.

And therein lies the problem. The SCOTUS left the barn door open for the lower courts to determine the level of scrutiny with Heller I. Most have been intermediate, some have been strict.

Put me down for team strict

Certainly there's a case to be made that re-registration is a greater burden than the initial forms required at purchase, but is simply mailing a form to a national or regional office every three years really a "significant burden"?

 

[jbutler]

Read the law first

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/926

I've read the law. Are you under the impression that the law does not require vendors to maintain sales records?

 

[Old State]

I've read the law. Are you under the impression that the law does not require vendors to maintain sales records?

Every answer results in a new question. What ever logic trap you are trying to spring is taking too long to develop. Just came out with the point you want to make. I don't have time for tedious shenanigans

 

[jbutler]

Every answer results in a new question. What ever logic trap you are trying to spring is taking too long to develop. Just came out with the point you want to make. I don't have time for tedious shenanigans

We're down your path not mine. Every time I ask my question, you respond with something other than an answer.

So in case you've forgotten here it is again:

Are background checks therefore unconstitutional because they could later be used in the creation of the registry?

Is it unconstitutional, then, to require that vendors maintain records of gun sales that identify the purchaser?

So I'm asking you if you consider laws requiring retention of sales records unconstitutional.

 

[dew4au]

Certainly there's a case to be made that re-registration is a greater burden than the initial forms required at purchase, but is simply mailing a form to a national or regional office every three years really a "significant burden"?

Yep! ...and I'll leave it at that for now. I think you get where I'm coming from, and I can see where you stand.

Like I said in my first post, I didn't set out to change minds, I just wanted to clarify my position. The only reason I've kept in it this long is because you're a genuinely good dude and I've missed chatting with you these past few years.

Cheers, and see you in a chip related thread soon!

 

[jbutler]

Yep! ...and I'll leave it at that for now. I think you get where I'm coming from, and I can see where you stand.

Like I said in my first post, I didn't set out to change minds, I just wanted to clarify my position. The only reason I've kept in it this long is because you're a genuinely good dude and I've missed chatting with you these past few years.

Cheers, and see you in a chip related thread soon!

War Eagle!

 

[Old State]

We're down your path not mine. Every time I ask my question, you respond with something other than an answer.

So in case you've forgotten here it is again:

I thought we were talking about a registry. You made several tangents. Here is what I believe

"No such rule or regulation prescribed after the date of the enactment of the Firearms Owners’ Protection Act may require that records required to be maintained under this chapter or any portion of the contents of such records, be recorded at or transferred to a facility owned, managed, or controlled by the United States or any State or any political subdivision thereof, nor that any system of registration of firearms, firearms owners, or firearms transactions or dispositions be established. Nothing in this section expands or restricts the Secretary’s [1] authority to inquire into the disposition of any firearm in the course of a criminal investigation."

 

[jbutler]

I thought we were talking about a registry. You made several tangents. Here is what I believe

"No such rule or regulation prescribed after the date of the enactment of the Firearms Owners’ Protection Act may require that records required to be maintained under this chapter or any portion of the contents of such records, be recorded at or transferred to a facility owned, managed, or controlled by the United States or any State or any political subdivision thereof, nor that any system of registration of firearms, firearms owners, or firearms transactions or dispositions be established. Nothing in this section expands or restricts the Secretary’s [1] authority to inquire into the disposition of any firearm in the course of a criminal investigation."

In other words, you refuse to answer the question once again. Thanks for the clarification.

 

[Old State]

In other words, you refuse to answer the question once again. Thanks for the clarification.

That was the gotcha you were going for? You read the law so you know they legally can't keep background check data. Your whole line of questioning seems disengeuous to me

 

[jbutler]

That was the gotcha you were going for? You read the law so you know they legally can't keep background check data. Your whole line of questioning seems disengeuous to me

It's not a gotcha. It was a question.

The law requires vedors to retain sales records, so when you refused to discussed background checks (even though the current prohibition against retention of those records is irrelevant as to whether you believe their retention to be constitutional) I asked about sales records.

And you've still not answered the question.

Is it unconstitutional, then, to require that vendors maintain records of gun sales that identify the purchaser?

So I'm asking you if you consider laws requiring retention of sales records unconstitutional.

 

[Old State]

They can maintain records as long as they are not linked to a national data base....just like the law says

 

[jbutler]

They can maintain records as long as they are not linked to a national data base....just like the law says

Not only can they, but they must maintain those records.

But...back to my question that you still have not answered. Do I need to quote it again or do you think you can remember what it is?

 

[Old State]

by all means keep repeating yourself. You seem to have a fascination with dissecting minutia

 

[jbutler]

by all means keep repeating yourself. You seem to have a fascination with dissecting minutia

It's not minutiae. It's literally one yes or no question that for some mysterious reason you will not answer.

 

[Old State]

Haha. If I felt something was unconstitutional I would have said it. Is there any reason to think otherwise?

I am fine with background checks. A registry is unconstitutional. I answered that a few pages back. Is this was you want to take up 2 pages taking about ? Waste of time if you ask me, but you seem to have a lot of that

I'll ask you a question, what is your point?

 

[bergs]

Ronoh, A registry is in conflict with the entire basis of the Second Amendment. I have said that before. Nice try

How the fuck is the second amendment outlawing a registry? You fucking feckless thugs are all the same, warping whatever hollowed language you feel fits your useless cause and discarding or discrediting those that don't.

Here's the thing - I am for SOME gun controls. Not taking guns away. You are for NO CONTROLS AT ALL. Who's being more unreasonable?

You're a dipshit. I know that's me insulting you and frowned upon or whatever, but you're just a dipshit with some exposure to books and just creative enough to try to make arguments that uphold the sanctity of the Founders, when in actuality neither nor I know how they'd react to the cultural and technological advancements made since 1783.

 

[DrStrange]

I just can't help snickering at the luddites. Big data is amazing in what can be determined from seeming extraneous information. Should the day come that the government wants to know who the gun owners are, it is not going to be difficult to make a list. The government might not know all the serial numbers or the specific details but they would easily make a list of who to round up and be 95%+ accurate in who to target. Give a competent security force phone meta data, credit card & banking records and vehicle tracking information plus the motivation to try and you will have a list of gun owners.

Quiver in fear if you like but I doubt there will ever be a time the government is going to bother tracking down gun owners to take away their guns -=- DrStrange

PS For the record again, I am a strongly in favor of gun ownership by responsible gun owners. It is a waste of time to try and round up a hundred million plus firearms, even if the Constitution allowed that to happen.

 

[jbutler]

Haha. If I felt something was unconstitutional I would have said it. Is there any reason to think otherwise?

I am fine with background checks. A registry is unconstitutional. I answered that a few pages back. Is this was you want to take up 2 pages taking about ? Waste of time if you ask me, but you seem to have a lot of that

I'll ask you a question, what is your point?

My point was to try to have a rational dialogue with you, but I guess I should have figured out like a dozen posts ago that it's possible since you are evidently either too stupid to respond to a single direct question or have no desire to have an actual discussion.

In either case I hope you get locked inside your bunker and take yourself out Private Pyle style.

 

[bergs]

You answered your own question. There are enough people of your disposition in media, politics, and academia to make me believe that to be almost inevitable at somepoint in the future. Maybe 50- 100 years but still inevitable. The far left would push for a Constituional Convention at the first chance they got. They just need a crisis big enough. Then that type of "list" would come in handy

So the Founders anticipated a far left liberal media that would sway the voting population into putting people in the Oval Office and Congress that would nominate and confirm, over a 50 year period, liberal judges to the highest court in the land who would help support a junta that would ruthlessly pursue gun owners and eradicate their firearms via a central registry? That's why the 2nd Amendment, in spirit but not in specificity, discourages the use of a central registry of firearm owners?

I revise my earlier statement. You're a dipshit, and a closet conspiracy theorist.

 

[jbutler]

So the Founders anticipated a far left liberal media that would sway the voting population into putting people in the Oval Office and Congress that would nominate and confirm, over a 50 year period, liberal judges to the highest court in the land who would help support a junta that would ruthlessly pursue gun owners and eradicate their firearms via a central registry? That's why the 2nd Amendment, in spirit but not in specificity, discourages the use of a central registry of firearm owners?

I revise my earlier statement. You're a dipshit, and a closet conspiracy theorist.

To be fair, I think he's well out of the closet.