New DNC head is furious you can sell your own property without government permission

reply to post by condition9


Go to www.ksl.com classifieds... People privately buy and sell used guns everyday, legally. The state does not require any record of the sale.

her name is wasserMAN.
that explains it all.
she is an 'internationalist'
she wants 'her' government in place, not ours.

reply to post by thisguyrighthere




"New DNC head is furious you can sell your own property without government permission"


This topic title is so typical of how easy it is to miss-state a fact.

Here is the truth of it.

1. The new DNC is not "furious".
2. Private sellers do not and will not need government permission to sell.
It is the buyers who will be subjected to screening before they can buy privately.

note of amplification:

Buyers of guns already have to be screened and there is a waiting period. I just purchased a new rifle at a shop and had to submit to this process. Why should this rule not apply to all sales? All the DNC wants to do is to include private transactions into the same very sensible rule that applies to businesses.

The reason? No. It's not to take away rights. It is to make sure that those who do not have the right to own firearms (felons) cannot buy them privately thus skirting the law.

Please explain to me why this is a bad idea. And take care to be accurate in your language.

Humans tend to twist facts and to weave words in devious ways so that the issue is made to look so much more than it really is. This is done all the time in politics, marketing, religion and almost all other areas of our lives.

I am not bringing this to everyone's attention in order to demean or belittle. My purpose is to say to us all that we should always hold to the truth even when it lessens our arguments. This, it may do, but our credibility, our reputation for honesty is so much more important.

Let's try not to be "common". Can't we reject those ways in favor of truth?

JPS

Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by CaptGizmo
reply to post by macman

 

Do you know why regulations are put in place? Regulations happen when the average citizen can not govern themselves in a particular area anymore and people get ripped off,hurt, or killed! Look to the old west to see what it was like. Arguments were solved in the middle of the street for the whole world to see. Sorry, you guy's can use the Constitutional crutch all you want, but it wont change anything if the majority of the people want regulations. You will be the minority. Lets face it, many of us in this country are tired of the minority speaking for the rest of us!

Wrong again. research shows that there was less gun crime that has been dramatized in movies and by Hollywood.
No, regulations happen when the Govt thinks that people can't govern themselves.
But, the fed Govt has no authority in this matter. The States hold the sole authority.
No, you and others like you are the minority. This is demonstrated by the fact that the lawful process of passing laws in circumvented and replaced with regulating these things.

Try again.

No. You are wrong. The Federal Government trumps State's rights when the reasons for such actions can be ascribed to the maintenance of the common welfare (common good) of the people as stated in our constitution. The federal government presently mandates all sorts of licensing and is the senior authority for the regulation of such.

It is common talk that a citizen or a State can be considered to be some sort of "sovereign" entity. This is true in limited ways but in the areas of greatest import the federal government sets the standards.

States and local governments may write their own regulations that add to the existing federal laws but they may not counter those.

Finally the vast majority of citizens are in favor of strict regulations in any area of life where experience has shown us that people do often attempt abuses for selfish reasons. Abuses which do harm to other citizens.

Kindly educate yourself before you speak.

Originally posted by trailertrash

Buyers of guns already have to be screened and there is a waiting period.

Not for private gun sales in Texas. ( source )

I don't have that impediment, and don't want it. That's why we have 50 sovereign states; so we can have fifty laboratories regarding how best to balance safety and rights.

It's why we don't need the feds deciding such things, and why the democrats don't seem to do very well these days in the "fly over states."

all the best.

reply to post by trailertrash


Huh?

Where did you come up with that load of fecal matter?

Aside from getting your firearm talking points from Sarah Brady, is anything you said backed up by fact?

No, it isn't.

Originally posted by dr_strangecraft

Originally posted by trailertrash

Buyers of guns already have to be screened and there is a waiting period.

Not for private gun sales in Texas. ( source )

I don't have that impediment, and don't want it. That's why we have 50 sovereign states; so we can have fifty laboratories regarding how best to balance safety and rights.

It's why we don't need the feds deciding such things, and why the democrats don't seem to do very well these days in the "fly over states."

all the best.

edit on 21-4-2011 by dr_strangecraft because: to clarify

Originally posted by dr_strangecraft

Originally posted by trailertrash

Buyers of guns already have to be screened and there is a waiting period.

Not for private gun sales in Texas. ( source )

I don't have that impediment, and don't want it. That's why we have 50 sovereign states; so we can have fifty laboratories regarding how best to balance safety and rights.

It's why we don't need the feds deciding such things, and why the democrats don't seem to do very well these days in the "fly over states."

all the best.

edit on 21-4-2011 by dr_strangecraft because: to clarify

Correct you are. "Not at private gun sales in Texas". This leaves a loophole through which a person who should not have a gun can get one legally. The whole point of my statement above is directed to this hole which should be closed.

Private gun sales in Texas will be regulated if the federal government decides it will. If that is the case there will be nothing Texas can do about it. This is right and proper. The good of all the citizens of the country may not be compromised by any State laws. To make sure that justice is applied evenly we have the various courts. If Texas has the authority you claim then why are there federal courts in the state? For the simple reason that the federal government also has much authority everywhere in Texas and other states.

It is constitutional. It is in accordance with the considered collective thoughts of those men who created our country a long time ago. You might be interested to know that there is a federal law on the books which explicitly prohibits secession. States do not have the right to leave the fold.

The "Sovereignty" of States in not unlimited. It is limited. It requires cooperation with the federal government. It is further modified by the resolution of conflicts between those two. The States must follow, as a minimum, federal laws and regulations.

C'mon kids. Don't get in over your heads. It is a great mistake to listen to guys like Hannity, O'really and Limbaugh. Those folks have no idea of how our country is constituted. Raise yourselves up. Go to a legal library and do some study in these areas and learn better than you will ever hear on the radio.

Please read, study and inform yourselves and try to avoid such statements as "load of fecal....." as Viperchill puts it. We all are entitled to our opinions and interpretations of law but we are not entitled to our own facts. Those are indelible and constant.

Originally posted by trailertrash
Correct you are. "Not at private gun sales in Texas". This leaves a loophole through which a person who should not have a gun can get one legally.

It's not legal.

Even as a private seller it is against the law to knowingly sell to an individual who is barred from owning firearms.

Plenty of people are pinched on this every year whether they knew the buyer was barred or not.

Which brings me back to: "why cant we call NICS?" if keeping guns out of the hands of criminals is the goal?

Originally posted by ViperChili

Originally posted by CaptGizmo
You generalization is amusing. A gun is a deadly weapon used for killing or hunting.

100% wrong.

A firearm has but one purpose: To fire a projectile. Where that projectile goes is determined by the human operator.

A hammer has but one purpose: To hammer stuff. Now, whether the object being hammered is a nail or a skull is determined by a human operator.

You are blaming the tool for the actions of a human. An inanimate object cannot be responsible for what a human does with it.

If you want to have an adult conversation about this, I suggest you debate intelligently, like an adult.

OK in what post of mine did I act like a child and not have an adult form of discussion here. The only post I see of anyone acting un adult like, is your's here. Don't start trolling for arguments PAL! I have an opinion on this matter and I will state such whether you or any other person that disagree with me likes it or not! If you don't like the fact that I think regulations should be in place for private guns sales then tough. As someone else said to me here. Deal with it.

Originally posted by trailertrash


No. You are wrong. The Federal Government trumps State's rights when the reasons for such actions can be ascribed to the maintenance of the common welfare (common good) of the people as stated in our constitution.

Where is that in the constitution?

Can you give the paragraph or the amendment title for your statement? Of course not, since you're making your own fertilizer as you go.

The federal government ONLY regulates interstate commerce. It has NO authority otherwise. It's why the FBI cannot investigate a murder within a single state except in an "advisory capacity" when invited by the state itself. The exception is homicide on govt property or Indian affairs administered property.

If it could, the Feds would have already outlawed concealed carry laws which are spreading across the states. But they are powerless to do so. There are genuine limits on Federal authority

reply to post by colbyforce


Yep.
But, state law requires that you do your due diligence. Asking that the buyer not be a prohibited owner and requesting to see an in State ID. The Buyer needs to do the same and needs to make sure that the gun is not stolen. A call to the local PD can clear the SN on the firearm.
A bill of sale is required to, I believe.
And most sellers request that the buyer have a Concealed Weapons Permit.

We can govern ourselves.

reply to post by trailertrash


Because the Fed Govt has no authority in this matter.
The States already have laws on the books regarding this.

Done and done.

reply to post by trailertrash


Fed Law may trump states rights (Now days), but the Fed Govt was designed to be limited in its grasp. It was designed to provide the States with the most control.
Spare me the BS.
Again, the Fed Govt has regulated its way into this. The States already have laws regarding this.

More laws are not needed. Maybe the Fed Govt should look to cut their bloated budget, instead of worrying about State matters.

reply to post by CaptGizmo


Well your opinion is laughable.

It isn't based on any fact whatsoever, only emotion.

reply to post by ViperChili

Your attitude is actually more laughable. what part of "In my opinion" did you not get? You seem determined to start a online argument with me based on the fact I have an opinion on a subject that you clearly feel different about. You seem to have a chip on your shoulder because of my opinion. Again....DEAL with it!.

And by the way Federal law does trump state law. It is covered under the Supremacy Clause in the Constitution. The "supremacy clause" is the most important guarantor of national union. It assures that the Constitution and federal laws and treaties take precedence over state law and binds all judges to adhere to that principle in their courts. - United States Senate[1]
Also covered under the 14th Amendment: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States."
So there's your fact.

Originally posted by CaptGizmo
reply to post by ViperChili

 

Your attitude is actually more laughable. what part of "In my opinion" did you not get? You seem determined to start a online argument with me based on the fact I have an opinion on a subject that you clearly feel different about. You seem to have a chip on your shoulder because of my opinion. Again....DEAL with it!.

edit on 4/21/2011 by CaptGizmo because: (no reason given)

Ok, your opinion is wrong. It goes against how the Fed Govt was constructed.
But, it is your opinion, and thankfully not how the law works or should work.

reply to post by macman

An what have you guys been doing here ....Stating your opinion. You guys seem to be under the impression that your opinion is more important than anyone else and blatantly attack anyone who has other wise.

Here since you and others seem to think Federal does not trump State law:

Ware v. Hylton, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 199 (1796)
McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 316 (1819)
Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, 14 U.S. 304 (1816), and Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. 264 (1821)
Ableman v. Booth, 62 U.S. 506 (1859)
Pennsylvania v. Nelson, 350 U.S. 497 (1956)
Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1 (1958)
Edgar v. Mite Corporation, 457 U.S. 624 (1982)

Yea, thankfully my opinion is not law right.

reply to post by CaptGizmo


I think you've lost track of what started your train.

Nobody has said the fed cant regulate interstate commerce.

And by your own post (two above) you admit a state cannot abridge fed rights. Which would mean we're back at the beginning, you dont like the BOR then use proper channels to amend it. Dont support silly backdoor scams and defacto limitations.

As it stands the fed has no business in intrastate commerce and no state has any business circumventing or impeding upon the BOR.

I dont think anyone has said otherwise.

Originally posted by CaptGizmo
reply to post by macman

 

An what have you guys been doing here ....Stating your opinion. You guys seem to be under the impression that your opinion is more important than anyone else and blatantly attack anyone who has other wise.

Here since you and others seem to think Federal does not trump State law:

Ware v. Hylton, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 199 (1796)
McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 316 (1819)
Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, 14 U.S. 304 (1816), and Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. 264 (1821)
Ableman v. Booth, 62 U.S. 506 (1859)
Pennsylvania v. Nelson, 350 U.S. 497 (1956)
Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1 (1958)
Edgar v. Mite Corporation, 457 U.S. 624 (1982)

Yea, thankfully my opinion is not law right.

Ah, case law. One of the favorite ways of any good Liberal to legislate without legislation.
The way the Govt was set up is to have limited interaction with the citizen *Fact*
The sole force of law was to be the State *Fact*
Yes, the Fed law is the law of the land, hence why it was created to be limited in scope *Fact*
The right to bare arms is guaranteed by the 2nd *Fact*
No where is said document does it give the right to the Fed Govt to enforce laws/restrictions on that right *Fact*
If the masses want to change that law, there is detailed instructions on how to amend the Constitution *Fact*
This proposal is not legitimate nor is it legal. *Fact*


Thank you, come again.

Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by CaptGizmo
reply to post by macman

 

An what have you guys been doing here ....Stating your opinion. You guys seem to be under the impression that your opinion is more important than anyone else and blatantly attack anyone who has other wise.

Here since you and others seem to think Federal does not trump State law:

Ware v. Hylton, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 199 (1796)
McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 316 (1819)
Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, 14 U.S. 304 (1816), and Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. 264 (1821)
Ableman v. Booth, 62 U.S. 506 (1859)
Pennsylvania v. Nelson, 350 U.S. 497 (1956)
Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1 (1958)
Edgar v. Mite Corporation, 457 U.S. 624 (1982)

Yea, thankfully my opinion is not law right.

Ah, case law. One of the favorite ways of any good Liberal to legislate without legislation.
The way the Govt was set up is to have limited interaction with the citizen *Fact*
The sole force of law was to be the State *Fact*
Yes, the Fed law is the law of the land, hence why it was created to be limited in scope *Fact*
The right to bare arms is guaranteed by the 2nd *Fact*
No where is said document does it give the right to the Fed Govt to enforce laws/restrictions on that right *Fact*
If the masses want to change that law, there is detailed instructions on how to amend the Constitution *Fact*
This proposal is not legitimate nor is it legal. *Fact*


Thank you, come again.

Oh I see, So I clearly put out there the facts that you guys CLAIM that I am not using then you proclaim that what is YOUR OPINION as well is fact. All the while using terms such as you liberals,,,when not once have I used any such term to generalize you. I provided actual Constitutional law cases as well as a Amendment that explains what I have said. That's alright though....I don't get mad, You just helped prove my point. Thanks.

So in the end I see no end to this so called discussion. Have fun with your guns, because whether you want to admit it or not, the truth of the matter is you are in the minority on this subject.The majority of the public want regulations for guns. We will have to agree to disagree. I am done since I see no end in sight.
And for the record..I am not a liberal as your blatant generalization assums. (Typical).
Your welcome.....come again!