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

a reply to: FlyersFan

Those rules are already in place and in force. Those are not unconstitutional.

Then you would agree that, in some cases, it is reasonable to infringe upon 2nd Amendment rights for public safety reasons.

Let's look at this scenario.

Let's say that, a convicted felon, stole someone else's identity, and purchased a firearm. In order to combat this scenario. The State put into place a finger printing requirement for public safety. And now it is pretty much impossible for convicted felons to purchase firearms.

Is this reasonable?

a reply to: Sookiechacha

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

No, I'm not against background checks. I'm actually for background checks, up to a point. What I'm against is fingerprinting for background checks.

Even the state of VA where I bought my 9mm S&W did a background check. It took them 10 minutes by phone. They simply check to see if the buyer has a felony conviction. If so, no sale.

I obviously did not have a felony conviction and walked out with my gun in a nice case and the pawn shop even threw in a nice leather holster, as VA is an open carry state.

Never used the holster. No need for it.

originally posted by: grey580
a reply to: FlyersFan

Those rules are already in place and in force. Those are not unconstitutional.

Then you would agree that, in some cases, it is reasonable to infringe upon 2nd Amendment rights for public safety reasons.

Let's look at this scenario.

Let's say that, a convicted felon, stole someone else's identity, and purchased a firearm. In order to combat this scenario. The State put into place a finger printing requirement for public safety. And now it is pretty much impossible for convicted felons to purchase firearms.

Is this reasonable?

No.

Have you not had enough of the government infringing on your rights under the guise of ‘public safety’ ?

Shall not.

a reply to: SchrodingersRat

Even the state of VA where I bought my 9mm S&W did a background check. It took them 10 minutes by phone. They simply check to see if the buyer has a felony conviction. If so, no sale.

What kind of safeguards did they use to make sure you were who you said you were? I don't think a felon would try to buy a gun with their own identity, if they knew they were disqualified. (Some nonviolent felons can get their 2nd Amendment rights back.)

originally posted by: grey580
a reply to: FlyersFan

Those rules are already in place and in force. Those are not unconstitutional.

Then you would agree that, in some cases, it is reasonable to infringe upon 2nd Amendment rights for public safety reasons.

Let's look at this scenario.

Let's say that, a convicted felon, stole someone else's identity, and purchased a firearm. In order to combat this scenario. The State put into place a finger printing requirement for public safety. And now it is pretty much impossible for convicted felons to purchase firearms.

Is this reasonable?

No. It's not reasonable.

They should use facial recognition software. It's not intrusive, and if you're a convicted felon your mugshot will definitely be in AFIS and a number of other law enforcement databases.

Easy, peasey, Japanesy...or something.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: SchrodingersRat

Even the state of VA where I bought my 9mm S&W did a background check. It took them 10 minutes by phone. They simply check to see if the buyer has a felony conviction. If so, no sale.

What kind of safeguards did they use to make sure you were who you said you were? I don't think a felon would try to buy a gun with their own identity, if they knew they were disqualified. (Some nonviolent felons can get their 2nd Amendment rights back.)

Felons don’t buy guns from the store in any state. They buy them from criminals or steal them.
Do you now understand that laws like mandating fingerprinting won’t stop criminals from having guns?
It only places obstacles in the way of law abiding citizens.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: SchrodingersRat

Even the state of VA where I bought my 9mm S&W did a background check. It took them 10 minutes by phone. They simply check to see if the buyer has a felony conviction. If so, no sale.

What kind of safeguards did they use to make sure you were who you said you were? I don't think a felon would try to buy a gun with their own identity, if they knew they were disqualified. (Some nonviolent felons can get their 2nd Amendment rights back.)

The clerk ensured that I had a valid state photo ID - in my case a VA drivers license - and he looked at the picture to ensure I was indeed that guy. Just like getting proofed at a bar when you're younger. And then he checked to see if I had a felony record. I did not. He then completed the sale - $450 if I remember correctly. And then I left the store.

Total elapsed time - maybe 15-20 minutes.

Every box checked.

a reply to: FlyersFan


Ummm...that'll sure pass the constitutional muster...NOT...

Sounds like infringement to me as well...





YouSir

originally posted by: Vermilion

originally posted by: grey580
a reply to: FlyersFan

Those rules are already in place and in force. Those are not unconstitutional.

Then you would agree that, in some cases, it is reasonable to infringe upon 2nd Amendment rights for public safety reasons.

Let's look at this scenario.

Let's say that, a convicted felon, stole someone else's identity, and purchased a firearm. In order to combat this scenario. The State put into place a finger printing requirement for public safety. And now it is pretty much impossible for convicted felons to purchase firearms.

Is this reasonable?

No.

Have you not had enough of the government infringing on your rights under the guise of ‘public safety’ ?

Shall not.

What is "A well regulated militia" even in there for? What does it even mean if "Shall not be infringed" supersedes it?

a reply to: Vermilion

Are you for felons possessing firearms then?

a reply to: SchrodingersRat

Just like getting proofed at a bar when you're younger.

Me and my fake ID got me into plenty of bars when I was younger. It was a real driver's license. It just wasn't mine.

a reply to: SchrodingersRat

I like the idea.

However, how is facial recognition any different from a finger print?

And how will you safeguard false positives?

a reply to: FlyersFan

This will only affect law abider taxpayer citizens, illegals, migrants and terrorist do not apply.

Got to love this anti constitution states.

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. 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.

You should not respond to topics you know not a thing about. No finger-prints are NOT part of the background check! Maybe research before you answer. For a pistol permit yes, but for long guns no. For purchasing a rifle or shot gun there is no mandatory finger-printing.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

originally posted by: Vermilion

originally posted by: grey580
a reply to: FlyersFan

Those rules are already in place and in force. Those are not unconstitutional.

Then you would agree that, in some cases, it is reasonable to infringe upon 2nd Amendment rights for public safety reasons.

Let's look at this scenario.

Let's say that, a convicted felon, stole someone else's identity, and purchased a firearm. In order to combat this scenario. The State put into place a finger printing requirement for public safety. And now it is pretty much impossible for convicted felons to purchase firearms.

Is this reasonable?

No.

Have you not had enough of the government infringing on your rights under the guise of ‘public safety’ ?

Shall not.

What is "A well regulated militia" even in there for? What does it even mean if "Shall not be infringed" supersedes it?

The framers wanted the people to be well armed and trained.
The word ‘regulated’ doesn’t pertain to government regulations.

originally posted by: grey580
a reply to: Vermilion

Are you for felons possessing firearms then?

I don’t see a problem with convicted violent felons forfeiting their 2A rights.

a reply to: Vermilion

The word ‘regulated’ doesn’t pertain to government regulations.

Says who?
Who is supposed to do the regulating?

originally posted by: FlyersFan

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.

This is worse than Canada!

Sounds similar but no finger printing here.

Two or three evening course to get a restricted permit that used to include handguns.

Background check and a note from the wife saying I’m a good guy then I got “permission” and a little pink card.

a reply to: hangedman13

For purchasing a rifle or shot gun there is no mandatory finger-printing.

I think there should be. Or, some other form of biometrics, so that we are assured the person is who they say they are.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

But you are OK with our military filling recruitment shortfalls with illegals, right? When the recruitment of legal US citizens gets to the point that a majority of our enlisted infantry personnel comes from Mexico, Venezuela, China and only God knows where else, you will be fine with that, right? When FJB's illegals invasion is called to action to create enough chaos for him to declare martial law to prevent the upcoming November election, and put that military into action on America's streets, you will be OK with that, right? I don't think an illegal infantryman carrying an M-16 on America's streets would hesitate to shoot you dead if commanded to do so.

Officers will be required to speak 40 languages to command our troops one of these days.

The Dems have been trying to disarm the public for 25 or 30 years now and they will not stop. It's like a county trying to enact and legalize liquor or gambling in their county. They keep getting it on the ballot every election and sooner or later, they will succeed. Eventually, they will disarm the nation. It's just a matter of time and persistence.

Constitution be damned.

Hell's bells, it's a dead document at this point anyway.