Police chiefs want background checks on private sales

[turbojohn41]

http://www.jsonline.com/news/wiscon...for-tougher-gun-checks-nt64ogh-162568276.html

 

[anmut]

Just saw this - I like how they're trying to sneak this under the radar during the summer. What a bunch of nazi's. Time to fire up the printer and get some letters sent out.

Another example of non-elected officials trying to disregard the Constitution.

 

[Tucker6900]

They can't override law or the constitution. Its amazing that police are just as blind to the correct answer as the .gov.

 

[Lurchiron]

Wouldn't it be easier, to just obtain background checks on all police chiefs'...

 

[Carcharodon]

Of course they do. Who gets to pay for that check?

 

[McX]

i think i have said this before; i want a free lifetime supply of cheeseburgers, doesnt mean i'm going to get it.

 

[XDFDE45]

The anti 2A pols have tried this before with no luck, hopefully that will continue.

 

[davidmcbeth]

Anyone has contact information (home telephone #s) of these chiefs who support this junk so we can complain to them ...

 

[MKEgal]

First reaction: of course they do.
Second reaction: not going to happen.

Third reaction, after reading the blurb: what an idiot

expanding the requirement to all sales would prevent people who can't legally possess guns from obtaining them

Riiiiight... laws prevent crime. If that were true we wouldn't need police, only laws.
Maybe that's why the chiefs of police lobby for laws that don't reduce the rate of violent crime - job security?

 

[anmut]

I just worry that the "it's not going to happen attitude" will allow us to watch the anti's slip this in as some b.s. earmark without us being able to mount resistance to it. I don't understand why these a55hats can't just leave our God-Given rights alone.

 

[TaurusToter]

Chicago has the strictest gun control laws in the country (they don't allow them, period, apparently) yet there have been more people killed there this year than soldiers in Afghanistan. How in the hell will MORE laws and checks fix this?

 

[E6chevron]

Keep in mind, that it is unlikely that the Wisconsin legislature will reconvene before the November elections.

 

[TaurusToter]

Must be nice to work 6 days out of the year.........

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

 

[tomm1963]

Keep in mind, that it is unlikely that the Wisconsin legislature will reconvene before the November elections.

Wisconsin legislature doesn't matter. The article says they are pushing this at the FEDERAL level.

 

[davidmcbeth]

Wisconsin legislature doesn't matter. The article says they are pushing this at the FEDERAL level.

Love your avatar ... silly bender

 

[McX]

maybe they can expand and pervert this to car sales; no license, no proof of insurance, no car.............might take all the fun out of driving without a license or insurance that so many now enjoy.

 

[davidmcbeth]

maybe they can expand and pervert this to car sales; no license, no proof of insurance, no car.............might take all the fun out of driving without a license or insurance that so many now enjoy.

Not D-R-I-V-I-N-G ... traveling ...

 

[E6chevron]

maybe they can expand and pervert this to car sales; no license, no proof of insurance, no car.............might take all the fun out of driving without a license or insurance that so many now enjoy.

The number of deaths from these vehicular "dangerous weapons" is greater than the gun homicides in the city of Milwaukee. Expand that by the explanation from the police, of many of the homicides, as "not being a random act of violence" which means the homicide was intentional... a killing of a rival gangster, revenge, robbery.

Most of the deaths from vehicles are NOT INTENTIONAL, they are not done for gain. I would suggest that to save lives, they should focus on the causes of these accidental deaths: Unlicensed drivers, driving under the influence, distracted driving. There are laws on the books which prohibit this (and gun crimes, also), maybe the police chiefs should focus on these existing laws.

 

[safcrkr]

Keep in mind, that it is unlikely that the Wisconsin legislature will reconvene before the November elections.

It's not about WI legislation (this time around). According to the article in the J-S, linked to in the original post, they're talking about "Federal" legislation this time.

So if (God forbid) they did get a federal law passed, who will do the BC checks? FFLs? NICS is free of charge by federal statute, but FFLs will likely treat these checks as they now do transfers from out-of-state purchases, and charge a fee.

Federal gun laws supposedly are constitutional because they fall under the "interstate commerce clause" (whatever the hell that is). All interstate gun transactions currently require background checks. Any new federal legislation would need to specify that all transactions, even the currently "off-limits" to background check requirements of inTRAstate sales would now fall under "interstate commerce" too. Intrastate means "within the state"... how does interstate commerce give feds the right to legislate intrastate matters? Just because a firearm may have been "covered" because it was made in another state, and it fell under fed jurisdiction when it was transfered across state lines, does that mean it's a perpetual thing? If it doesn't cross state lines when transfering ownership, the feds should have no jurisdiction... it would seem. But I'm sure it's not that simple. Of course not... why should our laws make sense?

 

[Interceptor_Knight]

They have been trying to "close the gunshow loophole" for many years Federally. I don't see it gaining any more steam this time around.