Wouldn't SB941 be an illegal bill based on this, or am I reading it wrong?

[HHT]

The Constitution Comes Before Statutes, Edicts, Ordinances, Rules or Regulations
Article VI, U.S. Constitution


This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

From Law.Cornell.Edu:

"This means that state governments and officials cannot take actions or pass laws that interfere with the Constitution, laws passed by Congress, or treaties. The Constitution was interpreted, in 1819, as giving the Supreme Court the power to invalidate any state actions that interfere with the Constitution and the laws and treaties passed pursuant to it. That power is not itself explicitly set out in the Constitution but was declared to exist by the Supreme Court in the decision of <broken link removed> ."

Read More

 

[ZA_Survivalist]

Id say it does.
Its a hinderance on ones constitutional right to obtain a firearm without extortion or frivolous "wait times"..

In turn, FFLs should be obligated to be open 24/7 & have free BGCs and transfers.. Not promoting socialist firearm stores however here are my reasons:

The bill did not address ones ability to obtain a firearm on weekends, odd hours or cap the "extortion" which is: Forced transfers and background checks.
The cost could keep going up and up and we are powerless to stop it.

And the FFL hours is very important to me because I usually only have Sundays off and I generally dont get off work until after most FFLs close. Its not at all practical for my (and Im sure others) situation(s).

 

[GUNARCHER]

Does this not establish a sort of "poll tax" on private sales of private property by the requirement of fees paid to the FFL and the state?

Also the data used by the State Police belongs to the citizenry. Why is it not available for their individual use via a publicly available data base that could be checked without charge?

It seems that a sex offender data base is publicly available for similar use.

 

[Martini_Up]

IMO, the belief that the 2nd amendment is not an absolute right ignores the words 'shall not be infringed'. These two phrases are juxtaposed and cannot exist together as 'shall not be infringed' IS EXACTLY an ABSOLUTE. Therefore, I completely agree with the op. Moreover, I believe ANY law restricting one's ability to keep and bear arms is illegal - so are the folks who wrote, signed and enforce them.

Seem extreme? Rigid? Well, RIGHTS are owned by PEOPLE and equal freedom. PRIVILEGES are owned by GOVERNMENT and equal degrees of slavery - to be dolled out after passing tests, paying fees, etc...

So I ask: Is the 2nd amendment a RIGHT or PRIVILEGE?

 

[fuhr52]

None of this matters in today's world. Democrats are in charge, they know better then anyone what is good for us. The truth, Constitution, facts,..... be damned. Keep voting for left wing do gooders and they will have us all in chains in no time.

 

[Martini_Up]

None of this matters in today's world. Democrats are in charge, they know better then anyone what is good for us. The truth, Constitution, facts,..... be damned. Keep voting for left wing do gooders and they will have us all in chains in no time.

Ja! ja! mein, fuhr52!!

 

[Uberdillo]

Also the data used by the State Police belongs to the citizenry. Why is it not available for their individual use via a publicly available data base that could be checked without charge?

It seems that a sex offender data base is publicly available for similar use.

Be really careful what you wish for.

I think the ability to perform a background check in a simple "pass / fail" manner should be freely available.

The information that is required to make that determination, I'd like to keep that how it is as it protects my privacy. My employers can already figure that stuff out if they want to, you don't need it all over facebook along the 4473 for your last gun purchase.

Keep voting for left wing do gooders

You think my vote matters? I guess I should have voted harder then, stupid me.

 

[Mark W.]

Currently the ability to do a bgc during a private sale taking nothing more then a phone call and 10.00 payment to the state police. Been that way for years how do you think a sale between none ffls works at a gun show?

 

[etrain16]

The Constitution Comes Before Statutes, Edicts, Ordinances, Rules or Regulations
Article VI, U.S. Constitution


This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

From Law.Cornell.Edu:

"This means that state governments and officials cannot take actions or pass laws that interfere with the Constitution, laws passed by Congress, or treaties. The Constitution was interpreted, in 1819, as giving the Supreme Court the power to invalidate any state actions that interfere with the Constitution and the laws and treaties passed pursuant to it. That power is not itself explicitly set out in the Constitution but was declared to exist by the Supreme Court in the decision of <broken link removed> ."

But remember, the Supreme Court upheld the idea that Universal Background Checks are not a violation of the 2nd amendment, and therefore, constitutional. And since the Supreme Court gave itself the authority to interpret the constitution, I'm afraid we don't have much recourse there, unless the Supreme Court overturns itself at some point in time.

 

[GUNARCHER]

Th requirement to pay for a background check for a used gun is similar to paying to vote. Even a free gun would require the fee. And on way or another it will be the buyer that pays for it---even if the seller has to do it.

Exercising a right should not have to cost you. You don't pay a fee to exercise any other right

 

[pokerace]

But remember, the Supreme Court upheld the idea that Universal Background Checks are not a violation of the 2nd amendment, and therefore, constitutional. And since the Supreme Court gave itself the authority to interpret the constitution, I'm afraid we don't have much recourse there, unless the Supreme Court overturns itself at some point in time.

1. The commerce clause in the constitution. Congress can only regulate interstate commerce and to buy a gun from another state,the sale must go through an FFL. Congress can't regulate private sales within states.

2. Universal background checks are completely unenforceable without registration and registration is against federal law per the firearms protection act of 1968. The Supreme Court case Haynes vs the United states ruled that felons don't have to register because it would be a violation of their 5th amendment rights protecting them from self incrimination so felons are protected by law from registering. Therefore, these checks do virtually nothing to impead criminals from obtaining guns.

3. Universal background checks would amount to an illegal search under the 4th amendment. Buying and selling a firearm is a constitutional right upheld in supreme court cases McDonald vs Chicago and DC vs Heller. In order to have a background check YOUR record would have to be searched which also requires seizure of your personal information (name, birth date ,place of birth, address, divers license info, and possibly your SSN) of which you have a reasonable expectation of privacy.

Additionally, universal background checks would not have prevented any of the recent mass shootings.

 

[PiratePast40]

To the original question: It's been done in other states for many years. Arguing if it's constitutional or not is a waste of time.

 

[tiggers97]

To the original question: It's been done in other states for many years. Arguing if it's constitutional or not is a waste of time.

'Id have to agree. But I think there are arguments for HOW its done.

 

[Asp]

'Id have to agree. But I think there are arguments for HOW its done.

Yes. How indeed.
The founding fathers did it through writing/relaying grievances, and when that was ignored it was from the business end of a rifle.

Start making friends, and then decide how you want to address these problems before us.
Let the cooler heads prevail.