How can we regulate guns ... ?

Sounds good, and I could emotionally support this. The problem is that the government, at whatever level, cannot require a license for a citizen to practice their free speech rights, their religious rights or their due process rights. The Constitution, as interpreted by the one body in our system with the sole right to do so, makes guns an individual right. No license required.This country in this generation will not entertain an amendment to lower that right into a privilage like driving. But we can set the stage now for the next generation to affect such a change.

There are limits to all of our constitutional rights. The "fire" in the theater and human sacrifice in religious rites, etc., kinds of things. And SCOTUS has many times ruled to limit criminals' privacy, association, speech and gun rights. Where there is an abuse of the social contract or an abuse of a "right" SCOTUS has consistently ruled to limit an abuser's rights.What is different in this proposal is that a good citizen would be required to "do something" in order to exercise a right the constitution says he/she already has. Government cannot require a good citizen to register with the state before attending church. It cannot require a good citizen to purchase a license to speak before the local Toastmasters Club.There is no issue in requiring a gun seller to perform a background check before selling you a gun since the limit being placed doesn't violate any of the seller's rights (no, the seller does not have a constitutionally protected right to sell you a gun.) However, there may be a very strong issue in requiring a good citizen to prove/license his own background before he is allowed to exercise a constitutional right he already possesses.I gave it a rather quick and dirty check and cannot find any SCOTUS ruling on this, but, given the history of the court, an individual constitutional right is (usually) given high deference where no abuse is alleged. A restriction on your constitutional rights just because some others do not like your having that right while you have done nothing wrong will not receive a pleasant walk through the courthouse.

No problem. Forget "license." I would use caution on the language "document showing gun-ownership eligibility." There already is such a document. The 2nd Amendment.What we need to do is find out if there are any documents that legally rescind/restrict this eligibility like a felony conviction or a stint in the funny farm.I know this seems picayune to most, but in dealing with the law, especially constitutional law, everything turns on the most minute detail. From your message 222 above: I understood this as making a legal requirement that an aspiring gun owner must be responsible for securing a background check which would be presented to the potential seller.If this was intended to be voluntary then I have no objection but would think this would not alter the situation we have now except to facilitate an immediate purchase at one of them gun shows.Requiring the seller to secure a background check is a legitimate restriction on business transactions well within the purview of the Commerce Clause, I would think. Requiring the potential purchaser, the citizen who already has such a right, to secure the check before he can exercise that right, is another matter. It is not the background check or a requirement for having a background check that is the issue. It is "who" is responsible for securing the check that is the heart of the constitutional issue. Requiring a person to jump through hoops before they are allowed to exercise a right the constitution says they already have is a big no-no. Think Poll Tax on voting rights.Requiring the seller to do the background check before he can legally sell a gun avoids this entanglement. Oh but there is a world of difference between restricting constitutional rights and legislating requirements for business.Question? How long does such a background check take?At a gun show could an inspired entrepreneur set up a booth with his computers and internet connections to whatever appropriate databases are needed, get a notary seal, and perform, if not instant background checks, checks in, say, 20-30 minutes? Fill out the simple form, notarize it and collect a $10 fee?If that is possible then all levels of government could require that background checks be secured and filed on all gun purchases, even at shows, even personal sales, by putting the onus on the seller, in every case without exception, without violating anyone's rights.A new industry is born! I get royalties.

OK. It ain't so. Of course. And the state would do this by proving the vendor made the sale and did not file the background check with the state as required. He can. No problem. As long as he understands he is in violation of the law and is willing to pay the consequences.The law requires the vendor to pay his employees and to send both the employee's share and the business's share of the Social Security tax to the Fed. He can choose to ignore this. He will also be fined. What rights? This is a business. There are specific reporting requirements of which filing a copy of the background check for every sale of every gun from anywhere to anyone with the state would be one. Violate the law at your own risk. No rights violated.I'm having a difficult time understanding where you are coming from on this, Jon. Businesses have rather strict reporting requirements on lots of stuff. Making such requirements does not violate any rights. In fact the requirements are agreed to by the owners as a condition of getting the state license to do whatever specific type of business is to be done. Au contraire, my friend. The government's right to limit, regulate and deny business is absolute. No one has any constitutional right to transact any business anywhere, ever.The constitution gives you the right to possess a gun. IT DOES NOT CONTAIN NOR GUARANTEE ANY RIGHT TO SELL. Edited by AZPaul3, : I wanted to.

Unless it is voluntary, in which case there is no public record, competence and committment hearings are done in the state courts where medical privilege does not apply and there is an open public record that can be added (probably is now) to the gun registry system.What cannot appear in the registry are the criminally nuts who have not yet crossed swords with the law. The ethics of medical privilege bars your doctor from revealing anything of your condition to anyone. Edited by AZPaul3, : sometimes I find the most unique ways to spell.

Read my words.Government controls commerce. Whether that is interstate (thus congress) or intrastate (thus legislature). Government has absolute authority over all commerce. There is no such thing as any "right" to set up and conduct a business. Government , at whatever level, allows you to conduct business under its terms and its regulations. If some level of government deems its interest lay in abolishing some business sector in total then you have no claim of "right" to take into court.Your "Firearms Freedom Act" grants no "right" to manufacture or sell. It only proclaims the state's right to regulate firearms that are wholly intrastate. You still have no "right" to manufacture or sell.Because of the Federal Constitution, what the state cannot do is deny your constitutional rights without compelling reason under due process. What the state can do is regulate, restrict and bar the manufacture and sale of anything it damn well pleases to. You, the citizen, have no "right" to commerce whatsoever.Edited by AZPaul3, : clarity, I hope.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.Edited by AZPaul3, : more of the same.

And for us lazy old farts and the lurkers just coming onto this scene what was the workable solution offered?No need to rewrite it. A link will do.

And we all know just how well voluntary compliance works, don't we. If this wasn't a direct violation of First Amendment rights then, yes it does.The City of Phoenix, in the form of local ordinance, can tell a Newspaper where, how, how not, when and when not it can sell to its hearts content, as long as it does not try to tell the paper what it can and cannot say. You're over reaching. I never went there. No one ever said that. Your constitutional right to posses a gun is protected. But that does not by extension create a right for you to make or sell them. Not my problem. If a city, a county, a state, decides you cannot sell guns or cigarettes or pythons within 1000 ft of a public school or within a million feet of a drinking fountain that is well within their rights to regulate the conduct of business. Look. The extremes I have given are not going to be enacted. They are unreasonable in the our society as it now stands and rightfully so.But ... (emphasis mine)this statement is bogus as a matter of law. And those who cannot see that do not understand our system of law.

OK. You're both eaters of spoiled bacon and onion quiche and your mothers' size 12 feet smell like rotted rose petals.

Of course there are limits, Jon. There are limits to all rights. See my answer above. Minus some machiavellian plot to circumvent a constitutional right the government has the right to do any of these things.But, I will grant you that the combination of all the above in the same jurisdiction at the same time would constitute such a plot and would not be looked upon kindly by the courts or the society. Just like my extreme examples being unreasonable, so is yours. These are not going to happen.The points are these:- Your right to keep and bear arms does not carry within it any equally protected rights to manufacture or sell.- Government (local, state, federal) control all aspects of commerce. We, the citizens, have no claim of "rights" to engage, transact or conduct any business.The absurd extremes we both are want to cite will not occur. We are reasonable people here. But the two tenants above still hold.

Wait! I remember this. Weren't there supposed to be royalties attached?If, as you say, such a check can be so quickly and easily accomplished then this seems reasonable. I approve.When do the royalty checks start?Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

[facepalm]Well if they don't mail them to Phoenix then I wouldn't be able to cash them, would I. [/duh]

Really. Try this:Let us assume just for kicks that the people of Vermont have a mass epiphany early one January morning and decide, by due process, through ballot initiative and by act of their legislature, to not allow the manufacture of guns in Vermont. Not outlaw the sale or trade or possession of guns, they just do not want guns made in their state.Do you see this as an infringement of the 2nd Amendment? Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Excellent. I'm totally lost. How does the average size of some militia help in answering the question?A memo went out and I didn't get one. Please explain.

Just assessing where your head is at.True or false:1. Anything that seeks to regulate any aspect of firearms, from capability, manufacture, transport, sale, to venue of possession or use, is an infringment of the 2nd Amendment.2. Your 2nd Amendment rights supercede everything in all the rest of American society.