Compromise - background checks in exchange for . . .

[dcmdon]

An antigun friend and I were talking about background checks over the holiday.

He understands that when antis want to talk compromise they are usually talking about taking less than they wanted from us. Not real compromise involving some give and take.

So while we were talking, he posed this question to me:

Would you be in favor of background checks if it had sufficient safetuards so that if there was a delay, or the system was down, the transaction could proceed, the burden of proof is on the govt, etc . . . in exchange for national right to POSSESS AND Carry.

In other words, background checks in exchange for a national policy legalizing the purchase, possession, and carry of firearms in all 50 states based on federal legislation. If you aren't a prohibited person, you can buy and carry in all 50 states.

That was a tough one for me. I'm torn. On one hand, I'm philosophically opposed to letting the Govt tell me taht I can possess them. On the other hand, the practical benefits for most people would be enormous.

Your thoughts?

 

[soloman02]

So we give up local/state sovereignty to the feds?

Which means when the dems gain complete control again, it become real easy for them to take away everyone's rights.

I understand it sucks to have some states be statists (mass, CT, CA, etc). But I think giving the feds total control is worse. Also consider, it is far easier to bribe members of the US house and senate than it is to bribe all legislators and governors in every state.

 

[RImike]

We already have background checks in RI, this isn't an issue for me.

 

[Spanz]

your friends position is premised on you being able to actually TRUST the government to hold to any deal they make. So they institute background checks, give you carry permission for a year, then introduce federal legislation to take that "privelige" away the first time some ahole has an accidental discharge. So there you are, holding your pud in your hand crying

 

[drgrant]

If this would kill paperless FTFs in free states, legally, then my answer would be a resounding NO.

-Mike

 

[AppleSeeds]

There's a difference between philosophical discussion in a vacuum and the real world. FOPA doesn't even seem to mean the same thing everywhere in the country even though it's a federal statute.

 

[drgrant]

So we give up local/state sovereignty to the feds?

Which means when the dems gain complete control again, it become real easy for them to take away everyone's rights.

I understand it sucks to have some states be statists (mass, CT, CA, etc). But I think giving the feds total control is worse. Also consider, it is far easier to bribe members of the US house and senate than it is to bribe all legislators and governors in every state.

If you live in one of the garbage states that's the only reason this deal would sound good. To anyone outside of garbage-land (like 40+ other states) this idea sucks.

The problem with playing concessions with antis is it often goes like this...

 

[Pete85]

Ok, so in exchange for "background checks" to prevent sales to people where there is hard evidence beyond reasonable doubt that they would use a firearm for nefarious purposes, I'd take a full repeal of NFA34, GCA68, the 1986 machine gun ban, and a federal prohibition on any state, city, or other jurisdiction from implementing their own version of such a law, including an AWB and magazine size limits.

 

[soloman02]

The only way I would support a national reciprocity bill is if it were as follows:

"If a person holds a license or permit to carry a firearm, that license or permit must be honored by all other states."

That's it. Simple. To the point. And it doesn't cede anything to the feds.

 

[MisterHappy]

Don:

It's irrelevant, and you should tell your Anti friend that it's irrelevant - as since places like NYC have local laws that go far above National laws, it's not going to happen. A driver's license is good everywhere - a National Gun License will not be.

 

[modnaru]

If you live in one of the garbage states that's the only reason this deal would sound good. To anyone outside of garbage-land (like 40+ other states) this idea sucks.

The problem with playing concessions with antis is it often goes like this...

Unless you travel and still want to enjoy your fundamental rights.

But I agree that it would have to be done in a way that does not limit the freedom of states to have more permissive rules. So the requirement needs to be limited to some nationally recognized lic standard, not a federal lic.

 

[The5thDentist]

NO! NEVER! Compromised enough already!!!

I want to go back in the other direction.

 

[LoginName]

Well normally I'm against any compromise, but I might rethink that if we could get mail order full-autos,
and other NFA goodies delivered right to the doorstep (preceded by repeal of the NFA of course).

I'm sure my UPS guy wouldn't be happy about it...

 

[IvIax]

An antigun friend and I were talking about background checks over the holiday.

He understands that when antis want to talk compromise they are usually talking about taking less than they wanted from us. Not real compromise involving some give and take.

So while we were talking, he posed this question to me:

Would you be in favor of background checks if it had sufficient safetuards so that if there was a delay, or the system was down, the transaction could proceed, the burden of proof is on the govt, etc . . . in exchange for national right to POSSESS AND Carry.

In other words, background checks in exchange for a national policy legalizing the purchase, possession, and carry of firearms in all 50 states based on federal legislation. If you aren't a prohibited person, you can buy and carry in all 50 states.

That was a tough one for me. I'm torn. On one hand, I'm philosophically opposed to letting the Govt tell me taht I can possess them. On the other hand, the practical benefits for most people would be enormous.

Your thoughts?

I would think it's a promising trade although a lot of keyboard warriors will attack my comments. I believe a lot of people anti guns because they don't know much about guns at all. It's like dislike Chinese food without even trying a few dishes. Let's say, I might have to wait a few days for a gun because of the unbiased background check. But every one, in every state, could have guns freely, legally. That my friend, you will see the crime rate drops, people are more knowledgeable about guns, know guns better and understand this is a positive thing to have. Then, you tell me government can take guns away from all of us plus new owners? despite the lower crime rate, sales tax? Well, I guess, that's all I would say.

 

[BattleSnail]

So we give up local/state sovereignty to the feds?

Which means when the dems gain complete control again, it become real easy for them to take away everyone's rights.

I understand it sucks to have some states be statists (mass, CT, CA, etc). But I think giving the feds total control is worse. Also consider, it is far easier to bribe members of the US house and senate than it is to bribe all legislators and governors in every state.

This is the crux of why the OPs idea or his friend's idea is not a good one. What needed is a mandate via case law through SCOTS to force the bad states to cut the shit, not have states give up their rights.

 

[BattleSnail]

what is the anti's obsession with "background checks". Pretty sure we already have these.

 

[soam]

You can bet that if a national concealed carry law was passed, states like CA and MA would start making everywhere into "sensitive areas" where carry is prohibited. Within a mile of a school, within a mile of a public park, within a mile of a daycare, etc etc.

 

[josh2600]

People with brains in their heads are coming around. Ask him wtf his problem is.

 

[FPrice]

Your thoughts?

How many times have liberals/progressives crawfished on a "compromise"?

Therein lie my thoughts.

Frack 'em.

 

[xtry51]

I'd like to see background checks gone first of all laws so at least when I hear liberals bitch about it, it would have some semblance of fact.

I don't humor antis with discussions like this. All laws gone period.

 

[Pete85]

what is the anti's obsession with "background checks". Pretty sure we already have these.

Those with little understanding of the issue believe what the talking heads say about how easy it is to go buy a gun without a background check legally. They spew crap like "gunshow loophole" and the ignorant masses eat it up like it's gospel. I was arguing with an anti about it and pointed out how in MA both parties need to have their license (and what it entailed to get a license) in order to execute a private sale, as well as the seller needing to fill out an FA10. Yeah but they can just go to another state and buy the gun from an unlicensed person there. They were convinced that purchasing a handgun, across state lines, that you can't legally possess in your home state, from an unlicensed dealer, without a background check wasn't violating any laws. Even walking them through Googling the statute, they were convinced that everything they found stating that it was in violation of several federal laws (including the ATF's website) was right wing propaganda, because they heard some politician say on TV that this was legal.

 

[42!]

Obviously where I live, MA, affects my opinion since this would actually be an improvement. Still, trying to be objective, there are prohibited persons that I agree with. Convicted felons, the mentally ill, really should be prohibited. Admittedly there are felonies that shouldn't be, but on the whole convicted felons should be prohibited. And how do you specifically qualify "mental illness".

So the question becomes, how do we sort out the PPs? From a practical standpoint the process can't address individuals or every possible circumstance. It needs to cover everyone. Try writing this up yourself, I have. For every line you right you'll think up another set of circumstances that you need to allow for in the law. And you need to be very specific or it will just get twisted around. I'm almost 1000 words into an "if I could write the law" exercise and I don't see an end yet.

So yes, I think this should be federal and this is reasonable.

I also acknowledge the risk that a future change could undo this and make things much worse. There is no such thing as a "deal" with any part of our government or politicians. This isn't a criticism, it's a statement of fact, this just isn't how the system works. A law can be passed one week and changed the next, welcome to the USA.

The position of "2nd Amendment" with "no regulation" is a wonderful philosophical position. But the reality is that this isn't practical and isn't going to happen, at least in our lifetimes. The laws didn't get the way they are overnight, it's taken 100s of years. The anti-gun groups are taking the right approach, small changes working toward an ultimate goal, they are not screaming "disarm america".

As pro-gun supporters our biggest problem is we are highly fractured and not working to a common and achievable goal. If we could come together and focus on a small, and reasonably sounding goal, like that suggested by the OP, we could then achieve that goal and then, just like the anti-gun groups, redefine our goal for the next step.

Addressing Spanz's post "So they institute background checks, give you carry permission for a year, then introduce federal legislation to take that "privelige" away the first time some ahole has an accidental discharge. So there you are, holding your pud in your hand crying"

It would be just as easy to put language into the law that acknowledges gun ownership as a "right" as it would to say it was a "privilege". For instance: "To applying reasonable regulation to the individual's right to firearms ownership the following is enacted", something like that, you get the idea.

Slipping in that word "right" could only help in the future.

BTW I'm open to hearing any and all opinions and arguments against my position. You may even convince me to change my position. BUT, I've seen some posts lately that were nothing more than personal attacks. They didn't even contain a comment on the subject. So let's all try to be adults. That said, let the flaming begin

 

[xtry51]

Obviously where I live, MA, affects my opinion since this would actually be an improvement. Still, trying to be objective, there are prohibited persons that I agree with. Convicted felons, the mentally ill, really should be prohibited. Admittedly there are felonies that shouldn't be, but on the whole convicted felons should be prohibited. And how do you specifically qualify "mental illness".

So the question becomes, how do we sort out the PPs? From a practical standpoint the process can't address individuals or every possible circumstance. It needs to cover everyone. Try writing this up yourself, I have. For every line you right you'll think up another set of circumstances that you need to allow for in the law. And you need to be very specific or it will just get twisted around. I'm almost 1000 words into an "if I could write the law" exercise and I don't see an end yet.

So yes, I think this should be federal and this is reasonable.

I also acknowledge the risk that a future change could undo this and make things much worse. There is no such thing as a "deal" with any part of our government or politicians. This isn't a criticism, it's a statement of fact, this just isn't how the system works. A law can be passed one week and changed the next, welcome to the USA.

The position of "2nd Amendment" with "no regulation" is a wonderful philosophical position. But the reality is that this isn't practical and isn't going to happen, at least in our lifetimes. The laws didn't get the way they are overnight, it's taken 100s of years. The anti-gun groups are taking the right approach, small changes working toward an ultimate goal, they are not screaming "disarm america".

As pro-gun supporters our biggest problem is we are highly fractured and not working to a common and achievable goal. If we could come together and focus on a small, and reasonably sounding goal, like that suggested by the OP, we could then achieve that goal and then, just like the anti-gun groups, redefine our goal for the next step.

Addressing Spanz's post "So they institute background checks, give you carry permission for a year, then introduce federal legislation to take that "privelige" away the first time some ahole has an accidental discharge. So there you are, holding your pud in your hand crying"

It would be just as easy to put language into the law that acknowledges gun ownership as a "right" as it would to say it was a "privilege". For instance: "To applying reasonable regulation to the individual's right to firearms ownership the following is enacted", something like that, you get the idea.

Slipping in that word "right" could only help in the future.

BTW I'm open to hearing any and all opinions and arguments against my position. You may even convince me to change my position. BUT, I've seen some posts lately that were nothing more than personal attacks. They didn't even contain a comment on the subject. So let's all try to be adults. That said, let the flaming begin

Flame commencing.

There should be no such thing as a PP. Period. Know why? Because if someone is a threat to society still THEY SHOULD NOT BE OUT OF JAIL.

It's that simple. Not in jail means you get all your rights back. End of story.

 

[LoginName]

what is the anti's obsession with "background checks". Pretty sure we already have these.

They've convinced themselves that universal background checks is the one gun control issue that would be be easiest to
pass, so they've put most of their time, effort and money into it.

One thing I can say about the newest generation of gun grabbers (MAIG/Demanding Moms/Every Town), is that they've learned
from the mistakes of their fore runners (Bradys/VPC/MMM), by not going full bore retard with the issue.

Even with the last 6-8 months, they've backed down somewhat from an AWB and magazine limits.

It doesn't mean they've forgotten about it, or given up on it, it just means they're savvy enough not to bite off more than
they can chew at one sitting.

And that's the problem with any kind of compromise WRT universal background checks.

Once they've achieved that, they'll only become more emboldened and move onto the next thing on their agenda.

Putting aside any Constitutional or 2nd amendment arguments for a moment, one of the best reasons for opposing UBC's,
is that it keeps their side occupied and ties up resources that they could be using elsewhere.

 

[mattyw]

no

 

[Quiet]

Background checks as currently federally administered (i.e. no permanent record of the transaction may be kept by the .gov) are merely enforcement of the set of prohibitions that already exist.

So you're asking if I would "give up" and allow enforcement of the rules that exist for full nationally mandated reciprocity like driver's licenses?

Unless someone can give me a really good reason to change my mind (and I'm still open to that) my answer would be HELL YA!

 

[wahsben]

Those who continue to compromise will continue to be compromised.

Compromise is failure on the installment plan.

Background checks are just another name for registration.

 

[xtry51]

Background checks as currently federally administered (i.e. no permanent record of the transaction may be kept by the .gov) are merely enforcement of the set of prohibitions that already exist.

So you're asking if I would "give up" and allow enforcement of the rules that exist for full nationally mandated reciprocity like driver's licenses?

Unless someone can give me a really good reason to change my mind (and I'm still open to that) my answer would be HELL YA!

The one and only reason: because it would be used as an open door to further federal limitation. The problem with antis is their idea of "compromise" is you give up more every year.

 

[Dadstoys]

Do I want whack jobs having guns? Nope.
Do I think that the only reason they push this so hard is to get a nice federal registry of gun owners? Hell yes.
Do I think the next step after that is finding reasons to take them after that ? F*ck yes.
Trying to disarm the better part of this country without a national registry would be like herding cats.
Some of it is moot anyway.
I'd bet my left nut that every single NCIS check ever run is stored somewhere.
They don't care what the law says .

 

[BattleSnail]

OP should ask his friend which of his basic human rights he's open to compromising on.

- - - Updated - - -

Background checks as currently federally administered (i.e. no permanent record of the transaction may be kept by the .gov) are merely enforcement of the set of prohibitions that already exist.

So you're asking if I would "give up" and allow enforcement of the rules that exist for full nationally mandated reciprocity like driver's licenses?

Unless someone can give me a really good reason to change my mind (and I'm still open to that) my answer would be HELL YA!

I think Solomon gave a pretty good reason