If the ATF Whistleblowers Are Correct, Joe Biden Will Be Ripping Up the Constitution Once Again

[Valletta]

Not only is there is no federal law that comes even close to regulating the private intrastate sale of firearms, but, when Congress has considered the idea in recent years, it has explicitly rejected it (see: Manchin-Toomey).

If the ATF Whistleblowers Are Correct, Joe Biden Will Be Ripping Up the Constitution Once Again | National Review

There are, at least, four ways in which the ATF’s alleged plan is illegal.

www.nationalreview.com

First it was the border laws. Before this Joe thumbed his nose at the Supreme Court decision on student loans.

 

[Ceallaigh]

"would go all the way, purporting to require background checks for all private gun sales."

What surprises me is this isn't already a thing.

 

[Larniavc]

Not only is there is no federal law that comes even close to regulating the private intrastate sale of firearms, but, when Congress has considered the idea in recent years, it has explicitly rejected it (see: Manchin-Toomey).

If the ATF Whistleblowers Are Correct, Joe Biden Will Be Ripping Up the Constitution Once Again | National Review

There are, at least, four ways in which the ATF’s alleged plan is illegal.

www.nationalreview.com

First it was the border laws. Before this Joe thumbed his nose at the Supreme Court decision on student loans.

And if Obama gave Biden his time machine he could go back and kill Reagan as a baby and install a drag queen as president!

We're through the looking glass here, people.

 

[BCP1928]

"would go all the way, purporting to require background checks for all private gun sales."

What surprises me is this isn't already a thing.

What puzzles me is how it would infringe on the 2nd Amendment.

 

[Hank77]

What puzzles me is how it would infringe on the 2nd Amendment.

I'm sure it doesn't seeing that some states including mine already require background checks on all gun sales. There are exceptions for guns passed on to family members.

 

[iluvatar5150]

“Whistleblowers” report corruption. There’s nothing “whistleblowery” about reporting that bureaucrats are working on policy updates.

Whether or not a federal agency currently has the legal power to regulate these sales (I have no opinion on that matter, but would be a little surprised if they did), there’s no good reason to not have background checks on these sales. If you’re wringing your hands over this, then you idolize guns and your idolatry is doing nothing but providing cover for criminals.

 

[Valletta]

“Whistleblowers” report corruption. There’s nothing “whistleblowery” about reporting that bureaucrats are working on policy updates.

Whether or not a federal agency currently has the legal power to regulate these sales (I have no opinion on that matter, but would be a little surprised if they did), there’s no good reason to not have background checks on these sales. If you’re wringing your hands over this, then you idolize guns and your idolatry is doing nothing but providing cover for criminals.

You're talking about giving the government more power. I'll take a guess that you really don't care much about owning a gun or not, so I'll pick another Constitutional right. The government wants to stop hate speech, for a theoretical example, let's say that someone reports you for what they think is hate speech. How would you feel if the government decided to regulate your speech, perhaps insisting you be recorded in any conversation outside of your house, and maybe charging you for it?

 

[A2SG]

You're talking about giving the government more power. I'll take a guess that you really don't care much about owning a gun or not, so I'll pick another Constitutional right. The government wants to stop hate speech, for a theoretical example, let's say that someone reports you for what they think is hate speech. How would you feel if the government decided to regulate your speech, perhaps insisting you be recorded in any conversation outside of your house, and maybe charging you for it?

There is a very specific difference between the first and second amendments. Note the part where the second specifically refers to a "well-regulated militia."

The first amendment says nothing about regulating free speech at all.

-- A2SG, regulation seems responsible in this case, given how irresponsible some gun users can sometimes be...

 

[iluvatar5150]

You're talking about giving the government more power.

Not really. It's already against the law to knowingly transfer a weapon to someone who's not allowed to possess it. Professional firearms dealers have to do a background check on any customers, but private sellers aren't burdened by that requirement, so they get to enjoy plausible deniability. The government already has the power to regulate who can possess weapons and the power to investigate people who are suspected of doing so illegally. What this rule would do is require private sellers to do some verification up front instead of being able to play the ignorance card.

I'll take a guess that you really don't care much about owning a gun or not

It doesn't matter whether or not I care about owning a gun. There are restrictions on who can own guns. Anybody who thinks those restrictions are appropriate and that we ought to "follow the existing laws" to keep guns out of the hands of prohibited persons ought to be cheering the background check requirement, because all it does is help make sure everybody is following the law instead of only some people.

I'll reiterate - the only people objecting to this are gun idolizers.

so I'll pick another Constitutional right. The government wants to stop hate speech, for a theoretical example, let's say that someone reports you for what they think is hate speech. How would you feel if the government decided to regulate your speech, perhaps insisting you be recorded in any conversation outside of your house, and maybe charging you for it?

That comparison is asinine.

 

[Valletta]

Not really. It's already against the law to knowingly transfer a weapon to someone who's not allowed to possess it. Professional firearms dealers have to do a background check on any customers, but private sellers aren't burdened by that requirement, so they get to enjoy plausible deniability. The government already has the power to regulate who can possess weapons and the power to investigate people who are suspected of doing so illegally. What this rule would do is require private sellers to do some verification up front instead of being able to play the ignorance card.



It doesn't matter whether or not I care about owning a gun. There are restrictions on who can own guns. Anybody who thinks those restrictions are appropriate and that we ought to "follow the existing laws" to keep guns out of the hands of prohibited persons ought to be cheering the background check requirement, because all it does is help make sure everybody is following the law instead of only some people.

I'll reiterate - the only people objecting to this are gun idolizers.


That comparison is asinine.

You're missing the point, the Constitution and thus our rights under the Constitution are supposed to come first. Just because it's more something conservatives care about doesn't mean that rules and regulations and "restrictions" should come first. For example, in this recent case against Trump because "everyone knows Trump is a criminal" did not mean that Trump's right to a speedy trial (charges were from the 1990s) or an impartial jury should have been thrown out the window. You only consider the comparison "asinine" because it is a right you don't care about or don't think should be in our Constitution. Why has the Biden administration not put Hunter in prison for a felon purchasing a gun?

 

[iluvatar5150]

You're missing the point, the Constitution and thus our rights under the Constitution are supposed to come first. Just because it's more something conservatives care about doesn't mean that rules and regulations and "restrictions" should come first.

Background checks don't represent a restriction on who can own a gun. They're merely a mechanism for enforcing already-existing restrictions.

If you want to argue against certain restrictions, that's your prerogative, but that's not what a complaint about background checks is. Complaining about background checks is nothing more than complaining that you're being forced to comply with the rules.

You only consider the comparison "asinine" because it is a right you don't care about or don't think should be in our Constitution.

It's asinine because there "hate speech" isn't illegal in the US.

Why has the Biden administration not put Hunter in prison for a felon purchasing a gun?

Because the trial is still ongoing. Would you have them jail him before the trial is concluded?

 

[Valletta]

If you want to argue against certain restrictions, that's your prerogative, but that's not what a complaint about background checks is. Complaining about background checks is nothing more than complaining that you're being forced to comply with the rules.
It's asinine because there "hate speech" isn't illegal in the US.

Let's say it's hate speech that incites, the government wants to make sure you don't incite an insurrection. You see, at some point rules and regulations can impinge on a Constitutional right. Information gathered can be misused, and has been misused by the government in the past.

 

[Larniavc]

let's say that someone reports you for what they think is hate speech.

Only bad people get done for hate speech. Simply don’t say hateful things and you’re fine

 

[iluvatar5150]

Let's say it's hate speech that incites, the government wants to make sure you don't incite an insurrection. You see, at some point rules and regulations can impinge on a Constitutional right. Information gathered can be misused, and has been misused by the government in the past.

They already have the legal ability to record anything that happens in a public place. I would expect that that extends to things posted “publicly” online. They don’t do that (except for the NSA) because it isn’t worth the effort.

 

[BCP1928]

You're missing the point, the Constitution and thus our rights under the Constitution are supposed to come first. Just because it's more something conservatives care about doesn't mean that rules and regulations and "restrictions" should come first. For example, in this recent case against Trump because "everyone knows Trump is a criminal" did not mean that Trump's right to a speedy trial (charges were from the 1990s) or an impartial jury should have been thrown out the window.

Trump's attorneys waived both of those requirements. They were "thrown out the window" at Trump's request.

You only consider the comparison "asinine" because it is a right you don't care about or don't think should be in our Constitution. Why has the Biden administration not put Hunter in prison for a felon purchasing a gun?

I'm still not clear about whether you oppose all background checks or only those for private sales.

 

[Larniavc]

Will the ripping up of the Constitution be televised?

 

[Valletta]

There is a very specific difference between the first and second amendments. Note the part where the second specifically refers to a "well-regulated militia."

Indeed, what constitutes a militia did come up. George Mason asked and answered that question:
“I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for few public officials.”

The James Madison Research Library and Information Center

 

[Valletta]

Will the ripping up of the Constitution be televised?

If Nancy Pelosi is available.

 

[A2SG]

Indeed, what constitutes a militia did come up. George Mason asked and answered that question:
“I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for few public officials.”

The James Madison Research Library and Information Center

Okay, you addressed the part I did not emphasize. Wanna tackle the part I did?

-- A2SG, took the time to italicize and bold it too...

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Indeed, what constitutes a militia did come up. George Mason asked and answered that question:
“I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for few public officials.”

The James Madison Research Library and Information Center

Who constitutes the militia has little relationship to whether or not it is considered "well-regulated". In fact, insisting that "the whole people" make up the militia only bolsters the argument that the government has the authority to impose regulations related to gun ownership on everyone.