Moms Demand are gushing over this quote from the President:
So the President, Bloomberg and Shannon Watts demand that anybody that wants to buy a gun has to go on his own and submit to a background check to see if they are felons. Now, I am guessing that if the Universal Background Checks law is passed, failure to get the UBC will probably be penalized, right?
But then I remember that there is a Supreme Court case that may ran smack against this: Haynes v. United States. Mr Haynes was a felon who was charged with failing to register a firearm. SCOTUS in a 7-1 decision ruled in favor of Mr Haynes because it required of “him to make an open admission to the government that he was in violation of the law, which was thus a violation of his right not to incriminate himself.”
Since I am not a Constitutional scholar like our President, I am gonna just throw this out there and have better minds go through it, but I would not be surprised that it ends up that a Law Abiding Citizen once more has less legal protections than a Felon.
Then again, that would be the point for the Gun Control crowd, wouldn’t be?
So if they get their UBC and I buy a gun without the check, Could I use Haynes as a defense? After all, If I admitted buying a gun without a UBC, wouldn’t that be self incrimination? Interesting question.
I’m not a lawyer. In this imagined scenario, I think they could still get you criminally if you have a firearm that does not have a UBC transaction recording its transfer to you. You would not have to be forced to declare it and thus would not have to self-incriminate.
Of course, this would require a permanent and complete record of all UBC transactions, (i.e. a gun registry). One more reason why they are determined to have these records. If they don’t know you have a gun they cannot confiscate and they cannot prove that you got a gun illegally without a UBC which makes it a little harder to seize it.
I really hate the whole idea of registries. They are so Nazi-like in spirit and reality. They do not stop crimes, but they make the job of jack-booted thugs a lot easier.
Since the only actual universal background check bill that covered ALL sales was defeated by the gun control side….what does THAT say about them.
Methinks they are more interested in control rather than safety.
Standard Marxist playbook: People should be WILLING to give up their rights for the benefit of all … as determined by the commissars and party apparatchiks. Their feelings get hurt when tell them to buzz off. When their feeling get hurt they get angry. When they get angry they murder people … in the best interests of all, of course.
“I don’t believe people should be able to own guns” Pres. Obama Lemme see, I went through a background check for each gun I’ve ever purchased, another for a FOID card when I lived in IL, and another when I got a carry permit. Just how many background checks would satisfy these people….. It will never end….
Sure. The right to own a gun absolutely comes with responsibility – the responsibility to not use it inappropriately, e.g. not go around and murder/threaten people with it or mishandle it.
It doesn’t mean that prior restraint of a basic right is in any way justified.
You know, if you look at it another way, it looks like a promotion for a “do-it-yourself” background check thing. If I have the responsibility to get a background check, that means the dealer doesn’t need to worry about it, right? So then the dealer doesn’t have to perform a background check on me, because I’ve already done it.
I support this new background-check-less initiative.
It’s even simpler than that. No need to cite Haynes.
The authority to mandate NICS checks on commercial sales issues from the Congress’s delegated commerce clause powers. There is no delegation in the Constitution ANYWHERE that grants the authority to impose them on private transfers. They are NOT commerce.
So, it’s my responsibility? Sounds like i’m being given a choice. If so…