But I do know this — we know from our experiences that background checks are effective in preventing a lot of people who should not have guns from getting guns.
James E. Clyburn
July 8, 2015
South Carolina Rep.: Removing Confederate flag matters, but what about guns?
[The CDC has been unable to find convincing evidence of this claim. Does Clyburn have evidence the CDC doesn’t have access too? Of course not. Clyburn doesn’t “know” things the same way as normal people do.
How do I know this for certain? The article also says:
Clyburn said he has “no way of knowing” whether the bill would have stopped the Charleston shooting.
We do know whether the bill would have stopped the Charleston shooting. The shooter passed a background check when he obtained his gun. Therefore we know that requiring background checks for sales unrelated to his gun purchase could not have affected his shooting of innocent people. It is magical thinking to believe it would have. These anti-gun people need help with their mental health. They have no business in positions of power. There is no point in attempting “reach a middle ground” with them. The only reason you would negotiate with people this crazy is to buy yourself some time to deal with them in a more appropriate manner.
I’m reminded of something Will Rogers said,
Diplomacy is the art of saying ‘Nice doggie’ until you can find a rock.
If you already have a “rock” there is no point in engaging in diplomacy with them. You instead force them into submission with the minimum amount of effort required.—Joe]
My favorite Clyburn quote is this one, which clearly expresses the contempt (or hatred) nearly all congresscritters have for the Constitution:
“There’s nothing in the constitution that says the Federal government has got anything to do with most of the stuff that we do.”
He’s almost right, the federal government is not supposed to do much of anything.
“Democracy is the art and science of running the circus from the monkey cage.”. H.L.Mencken
What would help the background check process? Quicker reporting of arrests. Better reporting of mental health issues. Without better reporting on both arrests and mental health issues, the background checks are not going to be as good as they could be.
Didn’t the Charleston gunman have an arrest on the books when he had his background check? I seem to remember the arrest was in February and he bought the gun in April….
Yep, but the Bleeding hearts elected to treat the felony drug possession as a misdemeanor.
The big problem with “gun death ” in this country is the vast majority of murderers should have still been in prison or executed at the time of thier crime.
“Progressives” are anarchists, with no desire to follow the law, but an insane desire to pass more laws they won’t follow.
If background checks could actually prevent certain people from obtaining a forbidden item then they could be used for preventing the average underage high school dropout from obtaining alcohol, tobacco, and illegal drugs. But even complete bans (illegal drugs) don’t slow down their access much, if any. Therefore, background checks are a waste of resources. Those resources would be better spent on help for those with mental health issues and removal from society those who will not or cannot behave themselves in public.
“…removal from society those who will not or cannot behave themselves in public.”
Oh, you mean Progressives.
Why is reporting of arrests relevant? Remember that an arrest is not a disqualifier for owning a gun under the law (never mind under the Constitution). What is a disqualifier is conviction, of a felony for which a max penalty of more than a year in jail applies.
As for mental health, there are lots of issues there. The crazies who committed various recent spectacular shootings were not, by and large, under psychiatric treatment. (The Aurora guy may be an exception, though the details are not exactly clear.) Then there is the issue of patient confidentiality. And the fact that psychiatry does not even remotely resemble an exact science.
The biggest objection is that most crimes with guns (or other weapons, for that matter) are committed by criminals who don’t go through the background check process in the first place. And interestingly enough, under the 5th amendment they can’t be held accountable for that failure. Only honest people are subject to penalties for not getting checked.
It is my understanding that the “felon in possession” federal statutes are relatively recent – certainly more recent than 15 December, 1968, which is the day before the effective date of USC 18 §922, according to Cornell University. (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/922#g)
Just exactly why it is accepted that a felony conviction removes – in perpetuity – a person’s firearms rights but not other rights as recognised by the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th etc… amendments is puzzling, particularly when one considers the vast array of less than heinous acts that are classified as “felonies”.
Whilst there may be a case of some mugger using a smartphone or tablet to bash a victim, use of a firearm to commit violent crimes is much more common.
I agree with your point about trivial acts being classed as felonies. If we restricted use of that word to truly heinous actions, we might have a better conversation about what rights the actors retain.
Given the current volume of federal law, almost every one of us is potentially a felon.
There is nothing in the Constitution that authorizes this sort of ban at all. And even if you’re willing to disregard that for the likes of violent rapist, robbers, and murderers, there is no possible justification for denying the right to bear arms to, say, tax evaders.
There’s also the inconsistency in thinking about criminal penalties. With the exception of a life sentence, the theory is that a punishment is supposed to shock the offender into going straight, and that at the end of the sentence “you have paid your debt to society” [sic] and are entitled to go back to living in the world, traveling the path of righteousness. So if that is the theory, denying civil rights to those in this situation is inconsistent and dishonest. Conversely, if it actually makes sense to deny civil rights to those who were convicted and now released, that actually means the whole theory of “paying debt to society” and the justification for less-than-life sentences is bulls***, as is the notion that criminals can be corrected and go straight.
Personally, I sit somewhat in the middle. I believe, to some extent, in the correctability of first time offenders generally, and non-violent offenders as well (especially those convicted of mala prohibida). I don’t believe in it for repeat violent offenders (so I would use a “two strikes” rather than “three strikes” rule). So that means I would support a constitutional amendment denying certain civil rights to repeat violent felons. Note though that such an amendment doesn’t currently exist, so no restriction of any kind is currently permitted by the Constitution.
“Conversely, if it actually makes sense to deny civil rights to those who were convicted and now released, that actually means the whole theory of ‘paying debt to society’ and the justification for less-than-life sentences is bulls***, as is the notion that criminals can be corrected and go straight.”
And so I maintain.