Delaware Bill Requiring Gun Buyers To Be Fingerprinted, Trained, and Get State Permission to Buy

""....the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.""

This sure sounds like infringement to me.

Democrats here in Delaware are making it impossible to buy guns unless you get fingerprinted, go to a training course, and GET STATE PERMISSION to buy a gun. That's subjective. Sounds unconstitutional to me.


Delaware Bill Requiring Gun Buyers To Be Fingerprinted, Trained, and Get State Permission to Buy

Senate Democrats in Delaware gave final approval Thursday to a bill requiring anyone wanting to buy a handgun to first be fingerprinted, undergo training and obtain permission from the state.

The bill cleared the Senate on a straight party-line vote Thursday and now goes to Democratic Gov. John Carney, who supports it.

a reply to: FlyersFan

The only way that bill will significantly reduce crime is if all the thugs that illegally procure guns to use in their killing sprees decide to become lawful abiding citizens and start buying their weapons legally.

a reply to: FlyersFan

Democrats here in Delaware are making it impossible to buy guns unless you get fingerprinted, go to a training course, and GET STATE PERMISSION to buy a gun. That's subjective. Sounds unconstitutional to me

They need fingerprints for a background check. Do you oppose a background before letting a person buy a gun?

Also, the 2nd Amendment calls for a "well regulated militia", so I think a training class is constitutional.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
They need fingerprints for a background check. Do you oppose a background before letting a person buy a gun?

Not true. Background checks can be done without fingerprints.

Also, the 2nd Amendment calls for a "well regulated militia", so I think a training class is constitutional.

""....the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.""
Requiring taking a class and requiring STATE APPROVAL is infringement.

a reply to: FlyersFan

Democrats here in Delaware are making it impossible to buy guns unless you get fingerprinted, go to a training course, and GET STATE PERMISSION to buy a gun. That's subjective. Sounds unconstitutional to me.

Virginia better get ready for a large influx of people leaving Delaware. It's an easy drive too.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

They need fingerprints for a background check. Do you oppose a background before letting a person buy a gun?

Well, for starters, the people in the states of TX and VA oppose fingerprinting.

There are probably a lot of other states that oppose fingerprinting too.

Some NY'ers had a stroke when I brought my gun here legally from VA. NY had to allow it to comply with the Constitution's "full faith & credit" clause.

I really do love this country and our founding fathers. Brilliant men!

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: FlyersFan

Democrats here in Delaware are making it impossible to buy guns unless you get fingerprinted, go to a training course, and GET STATE PERMISSION to buy a gun. That's subjective. Sounds unconstitutional to me

They need fingerprints for a background check.

I've had a number of background checks done for a variety of reasons without being fingerprinted.

Do you oppose a background before letting a person buy a gun?

Yes. For one, they're unconstitutional. For two, they don't prevent crime.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

I've been buying guns since I was 18. I will be 60 this year. I have never been asked to give fingerprints.

Guilty until proven innocent though, right ?

a reply to: FlyersFan
a reply to: SchrodingersRat
a reply to: DAVID64

I have never been asked to give fingerprints.

Oh. I guess I just assumed that's how background checks are conducted. Otherwise, there could easily be identity problems for some people, whose identities have been stolen.

I've been buying guns since I was 18. I will be 60 this year.

Yeah. I think the training thing should just be for first time gun owners.

Guilty until proven innocent though, right?

So, you're against background checks of any kind?

a reply to: YourFaceAgain

Yes. For one, they're unconstitutional. For two, they don't prevent crime.

I don' think they are. I think they're part of a "well regulated militia". We don't want M5 Gang members "standing their ground", for example, serving as an authorized militia, terrorizing inner city neighborhoods with their 2nd Amendment rights.

This kind of oppression is what makes ordinary criminals citiz.... I mean ordinary citizens, criminals. Seriously, it's completely unconstitutional and I believe that many states will try to do the same practices, just to see what sticks. Meanwhile, crime may actually go up and the real criminals will get away with.....murder, assault, robbery etc. with a bit more ease.

But this is comforting from OP:

Major Peter Sawyer of the Delaware State Police was unable to answer several questions from Republican lawmakers about the bill, including what subjective criteria could be used to deny a permit to a person not prohibited by law from having a gun. Under the bill, the SBI director can deny a permit if there is "probable cause" to believe that the person poses a danger to self or others.

"It’s hard to say," Sawyer said when asked about potentially disqualifying criteria, noting that the regulations have not been developed. Sawyer also was unable to explain what process troopers would follow if authorities revoke a person’s permit and order surrender of permit and any guns the person has.

/sarc

So NOT comforting. But it's just like the left to pass bills and 'figure out the details later'. You know, make it up as they go.

And of course, THIS obvious fact on who actually WON'T be following the new law.

Carney acknowledged in his speech, however, that "a very small number of people" associated with street gangs are committing "the vast majority of gun violence" in Wilmington and Dover, Delaware’s two largest cities.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

No. Background checks make sense ... Mostly. Tighter and tighter gun control on law abiding citizens makes no sense when you have soft on crime DAs and Judges letting the real criminals back on the street again and again.

a reply to: FlyersFan

I suggest moving to Hellinois. We have zero crimes, low taxes and great weather.

It's a damn shame other States don't follow us...

a reply to: FlyersFan

Do you support convicted felons being denied access to firearms?

Do you support mentally unstable people being denied access to firearms?

Do you consider that infringement?

a reply to: Kawrider9ish

Right ? I mean Prickster could show even those boys in Texas a thi....gag/retch sorry. Can't do it. Just can't do it.

This will just make more criminals chomp at the bit. Beware Haitians lurking!! 😀

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Oh. I guess I just assumed that's how background checks are conducted. Otherwise, there could easily be identity problems for some people, whose identities have been stolen.

Oh wow. You bring up a very good point.

Imagine a convicted felon purchasing firearms under a stolen identity. The stolen identity is clean so they could get the firearm. But with the added fingerprint check. Purchase would be denied when the fingerprints show up that it's a convicted felon in the system.

originally posted by: grey580
Do you support convicted felons being denied access to firearms?
Do you support mentally unstable people being denied access to firearms?

Those rules are already in place and in force. Those are not unconstitutional. These new rules would require fingerprinting, going to school, and PERMISSION FROM THE STATE. They are infringement.

a reply to: FlyersFan

What if you already own a gun? Hunter Biden says his dad has five guns in their Delaware home.

originally posted by: WeMustCare
What if you already own a gun? Hunter Biden says his dad has five guns in their Delaware home.

I live in Delaware. From what I read, so far, they aren't going after gun owners (YET), but are going after new gun owners. But of course, leave it to the Democrats, they'll reach back and try to infringe on the rights of those who already own firearms. no doubt.