Our Constitution has a basis in the presumption of innocence. Requiring background checks, before utalizing a Right that the Constitution states "shall not be infringed" reverses that presumption.

---
I understand WHY folks might be inclined to favor such a restriction, but it is against the plain language of our Constitution. It has been allowed, but that does not make it right. The proper thing to do is change the Constitution to allow it, not ignore it. IF the often quoted statistic that 90% of the people support it then changing the Constitution to allow it would be simple. Odd, that nobody has tried to do so. It makes me question how much of htat 90% is PR spin, and how much is real.

Polls are always tricky since the question that is asked can be misleading. I reccomend actually looking at the question that is asked in that 90% poll, and then questioning how many of those respondents were aware that ALL gun sales by a liscensed dealer are already subject to a background check, and that the majority of selelrs at "gun shows" are liscensed dealers. The only transaction that does not require a federal check (which is much more combursome and expensive than most realize) is a private sale from 1 individual to another.

Furthermore, how would the Federal government even know an individual passed a weapon to another individual if there was not an illegal list of who had what weapon to begin with? Additionally, what combination of drugs makes anyone beleive that someone who is a criminal would comply with this new requirement when they are alerady a criminal?

The net effect would be to place a burdonsome tax on ALL transactions and set a far reaching precedent further restricting the 2nd amendment and attacking the 4th and 5th.