No, not a scholar, just did some research not from either side. Not to mention havent had one single anti be able to refute my position on this, legal or otherwise.

Oh nicks mom, you mean THESE DETAILS where United States v. Freed, 401 U.S. 601 (1971) ...

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal...

..upholding the 5th amendment rights of the felon Haynes, or Freed not to self incriminate, but not eliminating the criminality of a felon, much less a PERSON possessing a tightly control destructive device (this was about HAND GRENADES a CLASS 3 weapon, not everyday single shot, pump, or semi auto firearms, so chew on that one for a bit if you dare) of which Freed was prosecuted for possessing, hence in reality it is IRRELEVANT hence no real need to reference it, but since you asked, LOL.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Fi...
gives a good description of this.

Yeah, the devil is in the details as this ruling and the previous Haynes ruling also did not rescind the 10 categories of people identified in the 1968 Federal Gun Control Act who by due process, have lost their 2nd amendment right, among others.

So what kind of evidence can nicksmom present to refute the GOVERNMENT EVIDENCE and court rulings referenced eh?

As the gun control laws requiring self incrimination still dont legally apply to felons, how again will said laws reduce violence, oh thats right THEY NEVER DO!

No.

It is an encumberance upon the right to buy and sell private property.

I look at this as another law that criminals will not follow. The only way to get rid of crime is to get rid of criminals.
Yes some are more violent than others but making a private citizen have to report a sale of private property seems like a far stretch. What next, you can’t sell your car without doing a background to see if the person had a driver’s license? What about your lawnmower, it has a warning label so it has to be dangerous. Don’t even think about selling your chainsaw! And hey what about those baseball bats, if not used to play ball then they will be used to crack heads.
This is nothing more than politics, look at the date he wants to present it and then look at the date when there is a majority in the Senate. It will become nothing more than a political add about how the right does not want to curb crime.

Nick's mom, Jarhead has a point and I think he made it a point to leave his comment somewhat vague to force you to read the courts decision. Thinking hurts, lol.
-
Thanks Jarhead, are you a part-time constitutional scholar involved with higher education by chance or simply a Patriot armed with knowledge? If the latter, you sir are dangerous!

Criminals abide by the law
when they are apprehended.

Jarhead1982: Save the legal analysis for real attorneys because your leaving out what happened after that case. Details, details.

Just another thing to make people believe they are doing something. Next they will try and regulate air.

I told you all this woulod happen once conceal and carry became law. Of course no one though of the consequences of allowing conceal and carry. Now look at what is happening. Were passing all these laws restricting conceal and carry. So I am asking is it worth all the argumant to keep the conceal and carry law? What ever happened to the second amendment that is suposed to garentee the right to bare arms. Article [II.]
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Dose this not clearly state I have the right to bare arms I already have a permit to carry under te law in Wisconsin but what hapened to the second amendment?

Ignorance of the law, by a police officer no less, well, he is a government employe so what does on really expect anyway.

http://supreme.justia.com/us/390/85/

Haynes vs. U.S. 390 U.S. 85 1968 where the US Supreme Court ruled 8-1 in favor of Haynes that any law requiring a felon to self incriminate themselves and violate their 5th amendment rights was not enforceable as a charge for prosecution. Hence criminals don't have to follow 85% of the existing gun control laws that do so, e.g. your stolen weapons, registrations, etc.... Amazing how the criminals don't have to obey these laws yet only law-abiding citizens do? This just validates the hypocrisy that laws affect only the felons! After all, 20,000 gun laws and we see how effective a piece of legislation is at stopping violence because if it did, there wouldn't be ANY VIOLENT CRIME.

I'm willing to bet most criminals get their guns by buying stolen ones so the law would be a moot point

Let's also expand background checks on people wanting to protest the government, and checks for people wishing to speak. We also need to make sure people that are walking on public property have a right to be there. Oh, and let's not forget the parent training classes, and pregnancy permission certificates!
Let's go gang!

Good thought ...... Bad Idea....
No way to enforce this, and I agree totally with the previous posts..
Might as well try to background check the weather...it would be about as easy.

How do BCPGV clients Pettit and the WCPA propose to enforce another new law, when existing gun laws are sneered at by thugs? Only the law abiding abide the law.

"He says expanding the requirement to all sales would prevent people who can't legally possess guns from obtaining them."-from the article.

So they are obtaining guns in violation of the law according to him. So he is saying that if yet another law is passed, those whose can't legally own guns will obey it, even though they ignore the 20,000+ gun laws that are already in place.