Skip to main content

View Diary: Gun Laws?? Extremist 'Straw Gun Buyers' (49 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Annual registration and proficiency testing (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kovie

    would go a long way - and protect medical privacy.  Any home where there are no firearms, and no one seeking to purchase firearms, or store firearms need not have their medical records referenced or reviewed in any way.

    Of course, on top of universal background checks to close the large loopholes of unregistered, untaxed sale/resale of firearms.

    I would also favor a 24 hour waiting period between an initial background check and a second check, before someone can walk away with a purchase.

    That would enable detection of some patterns of someone going to multiple dealers seeking to purchase a weapon.

    •  I think that regulations intended to keep (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      LilithGardener

      ANY firearms out of the hands of those who shouldn't have access to them are essential to decreasing gun violence, including not only the severely mentally ill but also violent felons, initiators of domestic violence, drunk drivers, people who fail firearm proficiency and safety tests, etc.

      Given the circumstances I don't think the Newtown shooter's mom should have been allowed to have so much as an antique Derringer in her house, let alone a small arsenal of weapons, for example.

      But I also think it's essential to keep certain guns, ammo and accessories from being sold to ANY civilian with certain very specific exceptions, such as owners of licensed gun ranged, licensed private security workers, etc.

      E.g. 30 round clips, cop killer bullets, semi-autos that can be modified to auto, etc. Very few people need such things, and given how dangerous they are, people merely wanting to own them isn't reason enough to let them IMO.

      "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

      by kovie on Thu Jan 31, 2013 at 12:57:04 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Can't tax a constitutional right (0+ / 0-)
      Of course, on top of universal background checks to close the large loopholes of unregistered, untaxed sale/resale of firearms.
      •  That's nonsense, you can tax a consumer (0+ / 0-)

        product. Are you saying there is a constitutional right to no sales tax on a hobby?

        •  Nope. I am saying you can't tax a constitutional (0+ / 0-)

          right exclusively. If you are just talking about state sales tax, then that is fine.  I thought you meant a specific, exclusive tax on just guns.

          So you are just talking about a state sales tax that is applied to everything a shop owner sells...and can apply to the seller or the purchaser or both as the main taxpayer?

            Sometimes the seller is the one responsible for the tax, sometimes it's the purchaser and in some states, it is a combo of both.  But in all cases, it is not applied as a mandate from the government to a specific item only...like gun ownership.  Since owning a gun is a constitutional right, you can not tax it specifically and exclusively any more than the state charging for a voter ID card.

          •  I'm saying you can regulate what kind of (0+ / 0-)

            gun, how much ammo, and how often, and for what purpose, through licensing, proficiency testing, registration, liability insurance, etc.

            Too many people take the "shall not be infringed" part of the second amendment to mean that "any thing goes," anywhere, anytime, and anyone who wants to (with a few exceptions and large loopholes).

          •  Patents are in the constitution too and are highly (0+ / 0-)

            regulated, and the products that might be made by a patent holder can be separately regulated.  See pharmaceuticals, for example.

            •  Patents are different, as for one not under the (0+ / 0-)

              Bill of Rights and thus not a specific right granted to the people and protection from the government....however, the bigger difference is that patents are designated as property.  So even with fees attached, the same can gain profit, be sold, lended or otherwise transferred.  A patent does not have to be used at all, if a person chooses not to protect their idea.  No rights are denied by a patent charge to process, and it is not a direct tax exclusive to a right or used in an attempt to hinder it.  

               According to the Constitution, Congress is granted the power to secure for limited times to ... inventors the exclusive right to their ... discoveries. Therefore, patents implementing that provision would have to grant temporary rights residing only in the inventors. Patents are now treated like property rights, so profit can be gained even by the patent.  

              In the case, Figueroa v. U.S. (2006), the plaintiff sued stating that  statutory patent fees imposed on him in 2001 and 2002 for filing his patent application and issuing his patent.  Since the Constitution allows him the right to a patent and he felt the statute was designed to generate revenue to fund federal programs other than the United States Patent and Trademark Office. (or basically just the needed money to process his patent and not a direct tax).....Figueroa contended that the fees constituted an exclusive tax to his right to patent and thus unconstitutional.  

              Even though Congress has imposed fees on the grant of patent rights since the first Patent Act to process...the suit said it was a fee over and above process fees or fees to the PTO for the patent.  It was concluded that is was not a direct exclusive tax that would infringe a right or hinder it but rather a fee that, even if considered a tax, was on personal property and the rights associated with it. The fees are levied upon the acquisition and ownership of patent rights.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site