INGO'ers REQUIRE background checks??

[jmiller676]

Are we fighting for free speech or ability to have kids? we have those freedoms already- what we don't have is the freedom to carry legally in every state- if that means completing a background for all firearms I don't see what we have lost unless someone has something to hide.

I think you're missing the point. Answer this, why don't we have the freedom to carry legally in every state? Also, it's not about hiding anything its about a constitutional right and an over reach by the govt. And this isn't about what freedoms we have, its about freedoms we've lost.

 

[HoughMade]

Are we fighting for free speech or ability to have kids? we have those freedoms already- what we don't have is the freedom to carry legally in every state- if that means completing a background for all firearms I don't see what we have lost unless someone has something to hide.

What makes you think that in exchange for universal background checks, we'll get legal carry in all states?

What makes anyone think universal background checks will make for a safer country?

I am all for sellers having the freedom to put whatever condition on their sales they want. That is freedom. The government imposing laws that have no practical purpose and are designed to track every firearm purchase is the opposite of freedom.

 

[John317]

What makes you think that in exchange for universal background checks, we'll get legal carry in all states?

What makes anyone think universal background checks will make for a safer country?

I am all for sellers having the freedom to put whatever condition on their sales they want. That is freedom. The government imposing laws that have no practical purpose and are designed to track every firearm purchase is the opposite of freedom.

I don't necessarily think we would get legal carry in all states in exchange but if universal checks is what it took I'd support it.

Universal background checks in my opinion won't do a lot of good as anyone wanting to find a gun is going to find one some way or another whether its legal or not and the % of people stopped from getting a firearm that shouldn't due a background check would be very very very small- maybe that small percentage would be worth it maybe not.

I agree with you jmiller676 that the government does overreach ( in more areas than just gun control) and that owning firearms is a constitutional right.

 

[Bunnykid68]

I don't necessarily think we would get legal carry in all states in exchange but if universal checks is what it took I'd support it.

Universal background checks in my opinion won't do a lot of good as anyone wanting to find a gun is going to find one some way or another whether its legal or not and the % of people stopped from getting a firearm that shouldn't due a background check would be very very very small- maybe that small percentage would be worth it maybe not.

I agree with you jmiller676 that the government does overreach ( in more areas than just gun control) and that owning firearms is a constitutional right.

Requiring universal background checks would just make me a criminal.

I am pretty sure I broke Indiana's universal handgun check when it was law simply because I had never heard of it at the time.

 

[Steve.43]

Secondary poll: what percentage of INGO members are progressives or statists? I'm guessing 16%

I vote NO.

And I wonder how many of those who voted "yes" really understand the term "progressive." The progressive movement has been working on this country for over 100 years to get us as far down the road to statist tyranny as they have. To go much farther, they are going to HAVE to disarm the American public. Otherwise, tyranny might get messy, and they know it.

Please think about this. It's not inconsequential.

 

[actaeon277]

Btt

 

[tv1217]

Oh is Elmer causing a ruckus again?

 

[indyblue]

What is a "proper person"? If they're not in jail, they should be allowed to own a firearm. It's a Right guaranteed by the Constitution. If they're too dangerous to own a firearm, why'd you let them out of prison? Either they've paid their debt or they haven't.

Since the 2nd amendment is actually a human right, I agree with your stance. For reference though:

IC 35-47-1-7
"Proper person"
Sec. 7. "Proper person" means a person who:
(1) does not have a conviction for resisting law enforcement under IC 35-44.1-3-1 within five (5) years before the person applies for a license or permit under this chapter;
(2) does not have a conviction for a crime for which the person could have been sentenced for more than one (1) year;
(3) does not have a conviction for a crime of domestic violence (as defined in IC 35-31.5-2-78), unless a court has restored the person's right to possess a firearm under IC 35-47-4-7;
(4) is not prohibited by a court order from possessing a handgun;
(5) does not have a record of being an alcohol or drug abuser as defined in this chapter;
(6) does not have documented evidence which would give rise to a reasonable belief that the person has a propensity for violent or emotionally unstable conduct;
(7) does not make a false statement of material fact on the person's application;
(8) does not have a conviction for any crime involving an inability to safely handle a handgun;
(9) does not have a conviction for violation of the provisions of this article within five (5) years of the person's application;
(10) does not have an adjudication as a delinquent child for an act that would be a felony if committed by an adult, if the person applying for a license or permit under this chapter is less than twenty-three (23) years of age;
(11) has not been involuntarily committed, other than a temporary commitment for observation or evaluation, to a mental institution by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority;
(12) has not been the subject of a:
(A) ninety (90) day commitment as a result of proceeding under IC 12-26-6; or
(B) regular commitment under IC 12-26-7; or
(13) has not been found by a court to be mentally incompetent, including being found:
(A) not guilty by reason of insanity;
(B) guilty but mentally ill; or
(C) incompetent to stand trial.
As added by P.L.311-1983, SEC.32. Amended by P.L.191-1984, SEC.1; P.L.148-1987, SEC.3; P.L.269-1995, SEC.5; P.L.49-2005, SEC.1; P.L.118-2007, SEC.34; P.L.127-2011, SEC.3; P.L.114-2012, SEC.139; P.L.126-2012, SEC.57.

 

[Bunnykid68]

 

[indyblue]

I voted yes, our cars are registered, to vol. @ school you need a background check, we've already gone through a background check to get our LTCH. I don't see any issue, with this, and this should not be confused with a registery which will not happen. I also agree with LaPierre, the system is broke.

You don't need to register any vehicle NOT driven on public roads, driving is a privilege - not a right. I'm not sure how to classify the school activity though.

 

[Bunnykid68]

You don't need to register any vehicle NOT driven on public roads, driving is a privilege - not a right. I'm not sure how to classify the school activity though.

Driving is a right, covered under free travel, yada yada yada. We did not always need a license to drive anymore than we needed a license/permit to carry guns

 

[Kutnupe14]

You don't need to register any vehicle NOT driven on public roads, driving is a privilege - not a right. I'm not sure how to classify the school activity though.

Why is it NOT a right?

 

[Bunnykid68]

Why is it NOT a right?

Because you need a state issued license

 

[indyblue]

Driving is a right, covered under free travel, yada yada yada. We did not always need a license to drive anymore than we needed a license/permit to carry guns

Driving is a right as is buying any motor vehicle you want and can afford. You also have the right to drive it on your own property without license, registration, or insurance. You can decide what "rules of the road" apply to driving on your own property (or any other private property you have permission to drive on, i.e. a race track acording to the track rules).

Since the public roads are built/owned/maintained by the govt. (the public), driving on them is a privilege granted by the owners (the public) and they get to set the rules of the road.

Free travel != Driving a motor vehicle. It IS your right to ride a bike, walk, run, or ride a horse to travel freely.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

What makes anyone think universal background checks will make for a safer country?

Last year I cited Indiana's old universal background check statute which was repealed in 1998.

I have asked for:

1. 1 crime that was prevented by Indiana's UBC.

2. 1 prosecution under a violation of Indiana's UBC.

I STILL await those examples.

 

[Bunnykid68]

Driving is a right as is buying any motor vehicle you want and can afford. You also have the right to drive it on your own property without license, registration, or insurance. You can decide what "rules of the road" apply to driving on your own property (or any other private property you have permission to drive on, i.e. a race track acording to the track rules).

Since the public roads are built/owned/maintained by the govt. (the public), driving on them is a privilege granted by the owners (the public) and they get to set the rules of the road.

Free travel != Driving a motor vehicle. It IS your right to ride a bike, walk, run, or ride a horse to travel freely.

So I should just get a horse?

 

[indyblue]

Driving is a right as is buying any motor vehicle you want and can afford. You also have the right to drive it on your own property without license, registration, or insurance. You can decide what "rules of the road" apply to driving on your own property (or any other private property you have permission to drive on, i.e. a race track acording to the track rules).

Since the public roads are built/owned/maintained by the govt. (the public), driving on them is a privilege granted by the owners (the public) and they get to set the rules of the road.

Free travel != Driving a motor vehicle. It IS your right to ride a bike, walk, run, or ride a horse to travel freely.

So I should just get a horse?

That IS your right!

 

[Bunnykid68]

That IS your right!

But they will not let me ride the horse on the roads I help pay for and private property owners might not appreciate me being on their property.

Driving is a right whether you choose to believe it or not. Just because a right is being infringed makes it no less a right.

 

[indyblue]

But they will not let me ride the horse on the roads I help pay for and private property owners might not appreciate me being on their property.

Driving is a right whether you choose to believe it or not. Just because a right is being infringed makes it no less a right.

Why won't they let you ride on the roads? I see plenty of people riding on various streets (not motor highways). How do all those Amish in Mishawaka manage to get around via horse? And notice a license is a "License to operate motor vehicles", it does not mention animals. Horse riders only need obey traffic laws, they don't "register" their horses.

Yes I realize that one of the points below involves the 9th circus, it is still precedent though.


Law Talk: Who says driving is a privilege and not a right? | MLive.com

. . .

The ability of the state to regulate drivers on the road dates to the dawn of the automobile in the 1916 Supreme Court decision regarding Frank J. Kane v. The State of New Jersey.

. . .

In 1999, the 9th Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals, in the case of Donald S. Miller v. the California Department of Motor Vehicles, ruled that there simply is no “fundamental right to drive.

“While the 'right of travel' is a fundamental right, the privilege to operate a motor vehicle can be conditionally granted based upon being licensed and following certain rules,” Lykins said. “If rules are broken or laws are violated, the State reserves the right to restrict or revoke a person’s privilege.”

Case law also holds that the safety of the public can outweigh the ability of the individual to drive.


​

 

[Kutnupe14]

Driving is a right as is buying any motor vehicle you want and can afford. You also have the right to drive it on your own property without license, registration, or insurance. You can decide what "rules of the road" apply to driving on your own property (or any other private property you have permission to drive on, i.e. a race track acording to the track rules).

Since the public roads are built/owned/maintained by the govt. (the public), driving on them is a privilege granted by the owners (the public) and they get to set the rules of the road.

Free travel != Driving a motor vehicle. It IS your right to ride a bike, walk, run, or ride a horse to travel freely.

Im playing Devil's Advocate, FYI.

So since a public roadway is by default, a govt roadway, what right does the govt have in who it allows to operate a motor vehicle? If driving a car is a right, then, like firearms, the govt shouldn't be regulating who has such right. If you say that if a person banned from driving a car, has tge other options of a horse or a bike, can't anti-2Aers say that if the govt restricts firearm ownership, those excluded can still have a knife or bat? It is VERY debateable that the right to drive isn't MORE important than the right to bear arms, and it certainly affects people's ability to survive and prosper to a greater degree.