California Passes Law to Require Background Checks for Ammo

No. Background checks as a requirement to engage in legal, Constitutionaly protected activities, are prior restraint, which is unconstitutional under the 4th, 5th and 14th Amendments.

2 Likes

Nonsense. People use speech to hire killers. Better run a background check before you’re allowed to get on the internet. People use voting to elect socialists that murder thousands. Better run a background check to make sure they’re not dumb enough to vote Socialists into power. People use Mosques to radicalize others and create terrorists… better run a background check.

1 Like

Negative. A background check forces me to jump through hoops in hopes that I won’t buy a gun. It’s passed as a deterrent for law abiding citizens to purchase firearms. Criminals don’t subject themselves to these checks so that’s the only explanation. With that opinion noted, you don’t get to force me to PROVE innocence in this country prior to exercising a right. You need proof of a crime and a grand jury indictment in order to drag me into court where you have to prove I’m guilty before depriving me of my rights. You have the arrangement backwards. Innocent until proven guilty. If you suspect me of a crime, prove it, convict me and THEN you get to take my rights away.

1 Like

Well, not only is there not a consensus on that, in the ten years since Heller, the courts have upheld various second amendment restrictions.

Lmao, sorry, but the courts have upheld a number of second amendment restrictions. Only criminals have a problem with background checks for purchasing fire arms/ammunition.

Incorrect. Only fascists push background checks to exercise a constitutional right.

Of course as far as the SC vetting, what rulings in specific?

1 Like

Just because the people have tolerated some restrictions on their freedom in compromise to the letter of the Constitution in no way means that any restriction is acceptable. Prior restraint is a very sacred aspect of American justice and you know that it would not be tolerated by you liberals if for example, it were applied to free speech or voting. Why you so willingly accept it when it comes to one Constitutional Right and not others, only demonstrates your hypocrisy on the issue.

Don’t be so sure of that, over 100,000 people fail firearms background checks annually.

Yeah I realize the restrictions aren’t acceptable to some. :man_shrugging:

Couple days ago I’ve taken a family member to gun shop to buy couple handguns before Washington state laws come into effect. Taken about hour and half for NIC to come back.

I just got back from same shop after taken a friend there to buy AR-15…after an hour it stalled out. Wasn’t rejected but it was incomplete, about 3 or 4 sites they check crashed. So it came back as incomplete. After 10 days if they don’t reject they have to sell it to him.

Imagine the backlog if they start background check on ammo too. Just adds more delay…but again that’s their intentions isn’t it?

1 Like

No, it’s not incorrect.

No, that’s not their intention. Their intention is to keep firearms and ammunition out of the hands of individuals that could pose a threat to society. If you can’t pass a basic background check, you probably shouldn’t posses a firearm.

And almost all of them are not criminals. Most fail because of some other ineligibility like open court proceedings for domestic issues or ineligibility to buy a hand gun based on residency or age. Felons know better than to go into a gun shop to buy a gun.

2 Likes

Of course. Liberals are an uncompromising group when it comes to limiting freedoms.

1 Like

How many are prosecuted for illegally trying to obtain a handgun? How many fail the second review?

Do you think it may have something to do with people not being aware they’re not allowed to have a firearm? For instance, if you were convicted of a misdemeanor domestic violence charge, you fail the background check. Some people think it’s only felon convictions. Have a restraining order from someone? Disqualified… there are many reasons. What’s the point? MILLIONS go through these checks and only a few are prosecuted for illegally trying to obtain a firearm. It’s a massive waste of money and it’s a violation of my rights as it’s forcing me to prove innocence prior to exercising a right. I don’t care if you agree, that’s just the facts.

1 Like

If you can’t provide proof that you’re a citizen and not a felon, you shouldn’t be allowed to vote… right?

2 Likes

I was referring to the statement that “only criminals have a problem with background checks” but I suspect you knew that. As to your link, can you show me a Supreme Court case where they upheld restrictions? Keep in mind, a restriction on the 2nd wouldn’t include removal of that right by someone that we can legally lock up. That’s like saying there’s restriction on freedom of speech because prisoners don’t get it. I’m talking about law abiding citizens but we can play word games if you want. It’s not an infringement of your rights to lock you up after committing a crime because you had due process. It IS an infringement of your rights to lock you up without due process. Same applies to firearms. The article mentions “the courts”, yet the Supreme Court has upheld NO restrictions in the past 20 years that I can find. Maybe you can show me one but even if they have upheld one, I’m not going to roll over and concede the fight to the SC. They have had horrible rulings in the past that were wrong as well.

1 Like

I don’t trust single word lib says about their intentions. I know they’re authoritarians and direct threat to a free society.

They’re not compatible.

1 Like

Or the Census…

I have some Argentinian Mauser ammo from the mid 70’s.
Would it pass a background check?

:sunglasses: