Politics Trump’s support for background check bill shows gun politics ‘shifting rapidly’

Public awareness, lawsuits, insurance premiums, etc., have greatly impacted drinking and driving.

MADD, not government. Excellent example of how the private sector works.

 

Your demand to take someone else's doesn't trump anything.

 

Not required.

Government isn't the bartender taking someone's keys before pouring that extra drink. It isn't Uber offering free rides on New Year's Eve.

 

And you're deluding yourself if you don't think that most of those who take advantage of the free Uber do so to avoid the penalties the government could/would impose upon them if they drove drunk.

 

They go to jail if they hurt or kill someone.

I do advocate penalties for criminality. The states can define what is homicide or assault as they see fit.

That's not the same thing as regulating drinking and driving.

Or regulating just driving. I don't see any criminality in driving a car down the road (or drinking, for that matter...)

 

They'd do it anyway.

 

Your fantasy world fascinates me.

 

The ACLU takes an interesting position. They don't see a 2nd amendment right to bear arms. But...

https://www.lectlaw.com/files/con11.htm

However, particular federal or state laws on licensing, registration, prohibition or other regulation of the manufacture, shipment, sale, purchase or possession of guns may raise civil liberties questions. For example, the enforcement process of systems of licensing, registration, or prohibition may threaten extensive invasions of privacy as owners are required to disclose details of ownership and information about their personal history, views, and associations. Furthermore, police enforcement of such schemes may encourage entrapment, illegal searches and other means which violate civil liberties.

The ACLU takes the position that any such legislation must be drafted bearing these problems in mind and seeking to minimize them.

(my note: I don't see how it is possible)

(footnote 1 begins here) When the Board adopted the June 1979 policy, it was suggested that it was unclear as to whether or not the ACLU supported gun control as a civil liberties matter, or simply did not oppose government regulation on this issue. In order to clarify this question, the following sentence was added to paragraph three of the policy as a footnote. "It is the sense of this body, that the word 'justifies' in this policy means we will affirmatively support gun control legislation."

At the April 12-13, 1980 Board meeting, the policy's footnote was reconsidered. Several Board members believed that the statement was inconsistent with the rest of the policy because there was no civil liberties rationale within the policy for affirmative ACLU support of gun control legislation. The Board then moved to refer the policy to the Due Process Committee to refine and discuss further the rationale for affirmative ACLU support of gun control legislation.

At the June 23-24, 1982 Board meeting, the Due Process Committee recommended deletion of the footnote from the gun control policy. The Committee's recommendation was based on the fact that no acceptable civil liberties rationale could be developed for affirmative support of gun control legislation. The link between guns and the breakdown of civil liberties, the Committee suggested, contains too much of the approach to crime control. And crime control, the Committee said, includes measures violative of civil liberties. The possibility that a person who might be defending his or her self at home might be arrested for the use of a handgun is troubling. If we support gun control legislation, we are encouraging the police to search homes, cars, and persons.

The Due Process Committee suggested that the problem with the footnote was that it was indefensible on civil liberties grounds, and that it is not the ACLU's role to commit the ACLU to involve ourselves in social issues by finding a constitutional basis where there is none. Even though gun control is a desirable social objective, and it would be nice to find a civil liberties rationale for affirmative ACLU support of gun control legislation, the Committee noted that the ACLU has never supported particular remedies for particular crimes, and as such, we cannot support gun control legislation.

The Board approved the Committee's recommendation, and deleted the footnote from the existing policy, but left intact the basic policy which expressed the ACLU's views.

 

You seem to suggest the bartenders don't care about the safety of their patrons?

Again, all the MADD publicity clearly encourages them to do so. In states where it is not a legal requirement.

 

Sometimes. The airlines banned smoking on almost all flights before the government passed any law.

Bartenders and establishments that serve alcohol have long been subject to liability in lawsuits. Since the 1800s, even.

 

Scalia's interpretation is that the feds cannot infringe on 2nd amendment rights.

But the states can.

 

CDC factsheet:

https://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/impaired_driving/impaired-drv_factsheet.html