Background checks DO violate the Fourth Amendment

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." Fourth Amendment

Another thread began with the premise that background checks do not violate the Fourth Amendment. It's time we started out with the correct premise.

America was founded on the presupposition that all men have unalienable Rights:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Declaration of Independence

The Declaration of Independence NOR the Constitution have any provision to permanently strip any American of an unalienable Right. Despite that the left wants to deny people the Right to keep and bear Arms for the most spurious of reasons. In fact, they have no constitutional de jure (that is, lawful) authority to do so.

Just because a person is convicted of a crime does not mean that they lose their unalienable Rights. It's real simple: If a person is on drugs and cannot be trusted; if a person has been convicted of a crime and can no longer be trusted, that individual does not belong in a free society. They belong in a hospital or in a prison.

So unequivocal in this, the early courts ruled this way:

"The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute.
He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the high powers delegated directly to the citizen, and is excepted out of the general powers of government.
A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power." Cockrum v. State 24 Tex.394, at 401-402 (1859)

The loony left for years has tried to imply that if a person cannot buy a firearm from an FFL, that somehow firearm related deaths are reduced. The reality is, the left has not been able to sustain such an argument.

Finally, Benjamin Franklin once stated that "he who would give up essential Liberty for the promise of temporary Safety, deserves neither Liberty nor Safety." Again, a reality check is that once you give up Liberty, it ends up costing you your safety. The biggest murderers in history are doctors and government. No intelligent person would give up the tools it takes for the individual to protect their unalienable Right to Life without a fight. The first step the left takes to confiscate the weapons is to register them... which is preceded by taking away the Right to be secure in your "papers" (which would include the modern version whereby access is done via computers.)

 

I agree with TheResister. I had not considered the 4th Amendment that way.

I will add to his premise by comparing the wording of the First and Second Amendments.

All know that the First begins "Congress shall make no law". That clearly leaves room for expectations of proper speech codes in schools, churches, and theaters.

The Second ends "shall not be infringed." Clearly there is no wiggle room there at all for any kind of infringement. NONE!!!

 

Clearly, the state has no probable cause to retrain any given persons' simple exercise of a right - any right - while it determines if said exercise violates the law; absent said probable cause, the state violates your right whenever it restrains you in that manner.

A police officer (i.e. the state) cannot stop you while walking down the street w/o cause just to see if you are an escaped felon; why do people think the state can stop your purchase of a firearm w/o cause just in case you are a felon?

 

You almost made sense up until here.

We doctors fight hard. Like REALLY hard to take the best care of our patients despite all regulations and in this "defensive medicine" era in which we have to practice.

We are people and we make mistakes. And we need to be responsible for them.

At 3 am in the morning when you are experiencing unbelievable pain, when YOU show up to the hospital, we will even have to try to save YOUR life.

No one else does that. No one can help you like we can help you.

If you think you can take better care of yourself, the beauty of it all, is that you can choose to take care of yourself.

If you come to me, I will take the best care of you that I can to the best of my abilities regardless of outside pressures. It is my choosing to be so.

 

personally held documents and property are not searched during a background check, therefore it doesn't violate the 4th Amendment.

sowwy

 

Is my ID a personally held document?

 

no, it is not.

its government property.

no warrant is required to request it.

 

Doesn't matter.
You cannot be restrained by the state w/o probable cause.

 

you mean reasonable suspicion

terry stops are legal, as is requesting to see your ID without a warrant.

 

Are you asserting that a background check to purchase a firearm from an FFL is equivalent to a Terry stop?

 

no, just showing proof that a warrant isn't required to demand ID

 

By a police officer, in certain circumstances, when RAS is present =/= (does not equal) by the feds for purchasing a firearm.

 

background checks look at info held by government agencies.

its NOT your property. Your criminal record doesn't belond to you. It belongs to all the affected govt. agencies.

 

So now you're claiming a gun store is a govt. agency? Do tell

 

no, the NICS system checks government owned records.

it doesn't check your personally held records. that would require a warrant or your consent.

 

Two things. First, most of which is check on a "background check" , is already public record. It would be hard to prove that it isn't "resonable"

Common examples of public records include:
Birth and death certificates.
Marriage licenses and certificates and divorce decrees.
Deeds, mortgages, and other related property records.
Various licenses, including professional and business licenses.
Driving records.
Criminal records including wants and warrants.
Sex offender records.
Court records.
Unclaimed property.
Missing persons.

Secondly, do we only allow trust worthy people to be out side of prison ? .
Well, that eliminates Faux news and Trump.

Yo will also have to ask yourself if it's equally reasonable to require a back ground check for school bus drivers.......even if you feel they all must be OK because they were "let out of prison" s must be cured, you as a parent still have right to know the background of those who would care for your kids.

 

Except its the gunstore, the FFL, who is required to take the info and have the check run. You said it was cool for feds or cops to request id, and in context that is true, but we're talking about FFLs having to take info and have you run.
Getting jammed up by the cops on RAS is NOT going into a store to purchase a product I have an enumerated individual right to keep and bear for any lawful purpose which a judge recently ruled did include commerce.
See how that works?

- - - Updated - - -

Being employed by the city to shepherd children =/= purchasing a firearm. Swing and a miss.

- - - Updated - - -

Being employed by the city to shepherd children =/= purchasing a firearm. Swing and a miss.

 

requesting personal info doesn't count as a search.

if it did, then Terry Stops would be unConstitutional.

 

Now you're saying that terry stops aren't searches. Jesus man Google is a thing! Even wikipedia knows that a terry stop is a search ffs!

And again: A COP with RAS asking for id =/= getting a background check run to exercise an individual enumerated constitutional right!

 

you're right, Terry Stops are a search and don't need a warrant.

But Terry Stops search your person and property, while a NICS check does not, thereby requiring an even lesser burden.

 

I realize that a lot of you have these really wild ideas and will look for any pretext to claim that a Right is not a Right, etc.

Let me make it simple for you:

When you apply for your National ID Card, the government lies to you. They call it a driver's license and when they send it to you... it magically becomes National ID. If it belongs to the government, then they should take it back. The problem is the people having such cards PAID for them! You want to argue idiocy, we can rationalize this until Hades freezes over into a block of ice.

If government procedures, documents, etc. hinder the individual from exercising any Right, then in a constitutional de jure (legal) Republic, citizens have a duty and an obligation to ignore the government. Is that safe? Not at the present. But, the Second Amendment acts as a last line of defense against tyranny.

So, if the government gives me my money back, they can have "their" silly card. It was a driver's license, but I already have a Right to Travel. Now you need a "driver's license" in order to exercise a constitutional Right?????? What's driving got to do with shooting? Oh, I'm sorry. I get it. The liberals think it's a drive by shooting permit.

Whatever the government thinks they know about an individual, it's between them and the individual. This new age of people using the government to access private information about the individual is beyond anything the Constitution would have allowed had we remained true to the original intent.

You can talk all day long, but there is no correlation between information the government has (or thinks they have) and the unalienable Rights of individuals. Furthermore, it is wholly irrational to claim that infringing upon the Rights of individuals is reasonable as per the Fourth Amendment. How far are we going to go with these generalizations?

Is it okay to do a background check in order to sell someone a Bible? They may have belonged to a dangerous cult once. Should we do background checks in order to buy or rent a movie with that has a lot of violence in it?

Determining that the left is two - faced on this issue took me all of sixty seconds:

https://www.aclu.org/ordering-pizza

Both sides seem to ignore the founding fathers, so let me quote Thomas Paine once again:

"He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself."

Maybe Ronstar can argue his points with the ACLU and he can find fault with their stance on privacy.

 

hahahahha!!!!

 

Your post is so fraught with misconceptions, I won't waste bandwidth elaborating. Most people are smarter than that. I'll just do the basics for you:

Driving a bus is NOT an unalienable right. The Second Amendment is a guaranteed Right. If the government keeps records on individuals, it generally has no place in the public sector. To wit:

The overwhelming majority of Americans have some kind of youthful indiscretion from a school suspension to driving violations to the youthful indiscretions of smoking a joint or running naked on campus as a prank. Private companies tap into irrelevant history and many people are denied credit, jobs, etc. Well nearly HALF of the American people can't live a normal life due to the past.

IF a business went to the government and said that an employee would be trusted with huge sums of money, expensive equipment, or that they might drive or teach children, then the government could release relevant details on a need to know basis.

When it comes to exercising a Right to keep and bear Arms, you don't have a need to know who I do business with, what I buy nor what the serial number is. And the Right is above the law (see my opening post.)

 

yes, owning a gun is a right.

but getting a background check to make sure you aint a criminal, doesn't violate this right.

it merely delays it for up to 3 days.

big woop.

 

Only because the three day period was codified into law, to prevent arbitrary delays being implemented for no purpose other than preventing an individual from being able to legally purchase a firearm.