Originally Posted by New Era
Because your due process argument is bull####. There is nothing unconstitutional about a restriction list. In fact, you must have gone through some type of investigation or criminal proceeding to be on that list. You aren't arbitrarily added to a restriction list with going through some form of process. If you are on a restriction list, you are normally there for a reason.
Here's the text of the amendments that reference due process.
5th Amendment
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
14th Amendment
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
Where is a restriction list identified as being unconstitutional? Also, this is a enforcement of restriction that applies to all regular gun sales. A gun sale is a gun sale. Just like any controlled substance you must meet the requirements of law to make a transfer of property. I can't just transfer ownership of my house or car to another party without proper transfer of title. Same should apply to gun ownership. And according to my bank, I can't sell my home or car to just anyone. They must prove the means to pay for said property by first proving they have the assets to pay for, or secure financing to pay for said property. There are plenty of restrictions or qualifications people have to meet to transfer property. When you are talking about getting a gun, those same restriction limitation mechanisms should be met regardless of your status of ownership, just like the examples I've outlined.
What problem do you have making sure that guns are in the hands of only sane responsible people? I also find it incredibly stupid to be making a due process argument when the Patriot Act and Patriot Act II make due process a thing of the past. I mean, understand what laws are in place before going postal over something that is really inconsequential in the big picture. The restriction list is constitutional and is already entrenched in many laws pertaining to gun ownership. This is application of law to all instances of gun transfer, which was the intent of the law to begin with.
|