Compromise - background checks in exchange for . . .

[42!]

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.

In a perfect world sure, but this isn't and never will be a perfect world.

 

[nhpoke]

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.

No new gun laws. Small. Achievable.
We really need to take a page out of the Antis book and focus. Every time we compromise we give up something else, we rarely gain.

Because if someone is a threat to society still THEY SHOULD NOT BE OUT OF JAIL.

Umm, yeah. Either the system works or it doesn't. If it doesn't then we need a new system. If they are a threat they are a threat with or without a legal weapon.

(i.e. no permanent record of the transaction may be kept by the .gov)

And the government isn't keeping track of our phone call either.

Compromise is failure on the installment plan.

Background checks are just another name for registration.

I'm personally done compromising by just giving up more of what we have a right to, that isn't compromise, that's just giving in slowly. We've compromised enough and nothing has gotten any safer, in fact it is much less safe. Let's try compromising back the way it started.

A possible compromise: Voluntary registration and access to all the "abilities" of Law Enforcement. Same weapons, same resources, same abilities, for anyone who isn't a PP of course. Anything that local, state, or federal "law enforcement" (PD, Sheriff, State Police, CIA, FBI, DHS has access to I get access to). All "special provisions" of law that apply to LEO's now also apply to me if I elect to register.

 

[42!]

Those who continue to compromise will continue to be compromised.
.

So if the anti-gun compromise for this, then they will continue to compromise?

 

[42!]

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.


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.

We can use the same tactics.

 

[Quiet]

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.

How does it open the door to further federal limitation?

There are already all sorts of federal limitations; that door is wide open already. In fact, the background check is (as I said) merely enforcement of current limitations.

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.

I agree with this. That's why I offered the current background check system and not the brand new version of background check/registry system that Harry Reid was pushing.

The States/Feds already know almost every single gun owner in the country. Many (most?) of them would turn all their guns in on demand regardless of a registry. Sadly.

So it was a hypothetical fantastical answer to a hypothetical question. For a change in the current law from:
NICS for all transactions at FFLs to NICS (through a public portal) for all purchases
and I get:
"All state licenses shall be honored by every other state, the rules of the state in which the person is present shall apply. In states where no license is required for residents, every out of state licensed individual shall be treated as if a resident"
or somesuch

I still would take it

 

[Quiet]

And the government isn't keeping track of our phone call either.

If you think that the .gov is keeping records of NICS checks (beyond paper trails at FFLs) well there's no point in even resisting any other laws since they could be doing everything anyway.

The problem with the people not caring about the government spying on us is a major problem. It truly means that the .gov can do whatever they want and in 6 months nobody will care a whit. Nobody cares. Nobody fkn cares.

 

[mremski]

Isn't this was Mas Ayoob has suggested a few times?
I'm against it. I want state carry permits treated just like state drivers licenses, state marriage certificates, etc. My NH DL lets me drive in all 50 states, so why not let my NH carry paperwork let me carry in all 50 states? To the best of my knowledge there is no minimum standard on DLs, each state sets it's own rules on what you need to get one, no?

 

[calsdad]

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?

Devolving state's rights up to the Federal Government is something that has been proven time and time again to be a bad idea for anybody who wants liberty.

So purely based on that - my answer would be no.

BUT - if we're talking about some sort of Federal license to carry - which applies in the same way that say the assault weapons ban does - in other words - there is no national AWB any more - but some states have their own - then I guess I'd say that's an idea to consider.

You can get a Federal license to carry - which would allow you to carry in any state that recognizes it - and states can still set their own restrictions.

My preference would be for NO Federal restrictions - because I think they just get worse over time.

But I admit that the background check thing is a debateable subject - because there probably are people out there who should not have easy access to firearms.

- - - Updated - - -

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

-Mike

If that was the case - then my answer would be a definitive no also.

 

[calsdad]

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.

What evidence do you have that the crime rate will drop?

What's the line of logic here- the free access to guns somehow drives the crime rates?

Seriously?

 

[calsdad]

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.

I've had almost that same exact conversation multiple times with non-gun owning people - and I've gotten really tired of them. Now I just respond with "If you think this is true - then why don't you go do it - I already know you're full of crap - because I've bought dozens of guns - have read the laws and have licenses in two states - so since this conversation is between a person that knows what he's talking about - and one that doesn't - I think the burden of proof is on YOU. Since you think that straw purchases and full autos are so easy to get - go get me a full auto AK - I'll even give you the money - if you can't get me one though - you owe me DOUBLE my money back".

So far that has shut every one of them up.

 

[Supermoto]

Sure, if background checks for everyone should be very simple. Not currently in a prison...pass
National carry, easy. The government just needs to pass a laws saying the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed...oh wait

 

[calsdad]

No new gun laws. Small. Achievable.
We really need to take a page out of the Antis book and focus. Every time we compromise we give up something else, we rarely gain.



Umm, yeah. Either the system works or it doesn't. If it doesn't then we need a new system. If they are a threat they are a threat with or without a legal weapon.



And the government isn't keeping track of our phone call either.



I'm personally done compromising by just giving up more of what we have a right to, that isn't compromise, that's just giving in slowly. We've compromised enough and nothing has gotten any safer, in fact it is much less safe. Let's try compromising back the way it started.

A possible compromise: Voluntary registration and access to all the "abilities" of Law Enforcement. Same weapons, same resources, same abilities, for anyone who isn't a PP of course. Anything that local, state, or federal "law enforcement" (PD, Sheriff, State Police, CIA, FBI, DHS has access to I get access to). All "special provisions" of law that apply to LEO's now also apply to me if I elect to register.

Here's a "compromise" - reinstitute the militia.

NOT what the left claims is the "militia" now - but the REAL militia - the way it used to be. No overseas deployments, no reporting to the FEDERAL government , you serve locally - and keep your weapons at HOME. Service in the militia entitles you to own fully automatic firearms, and other small infantry weapons (light and heavy machine guns, grenade launchers - etc).

You want to put in more restrictive laws and background checks - fine - we want a way to make sure that people are FULLY vetted to own all the firearms allowed them under the 2nd amendment. That means serving with your community and having the people all around you vet you and determine you are fit to fully exercise those 2nd amendment rights - NOT some bureaucrat in Washington DC.

 

[wahsben]

The anti's have never compromised. Compromise is when two sides give up something. The anti's just take.

So if the anti-gun compromise for this, then they will continue to compromise?

 

[Supermoto]

having the people all around you vet you and determine you are fit to fully exercise those 2nd amendment rights - NOT some bureaucrat in Washington DC.

Yeah, I really don't want anyone vetting me so I can exercise a natural right. What if I want to go to temple, but all my neighbors are muzzies?

 

[atmay]

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.

A) Firearms law is one of a very few places where the states shouldn't actually have any say.

B) **** your permits.

 

[PaulD]

I might accept "universal background checks" in exchange for suppressors, SBRs and full auto being taking off the NFA list and nationwide CCW. Maybe, but only after I have my full auto, suppressed SCAR in hand.

I'll never have to make this decision though because the antis are *never* willing to give anything.

 

[wahsben]

Neither the states or federal govt. should have any say. The 2A says so in the line "the right of the people to keep & bear arms shall not be infringed".

A) Firearms law is one of a very few places where the states shouldn't actually have any say.

B) **** your permits.

 

[calsdad]

Yeah, I really don't want anyone vetting me so I can exercise a natural right. What if I want to go to temple, but all my neighbors are muzzies?

Read some of the history of the militias during the colonial period - and directly after - in the US. There never really has been complete and total "free" access to firearms, except maybe on the frontier where there was nobody to tell you no. There have been restrictions in many forms that differed from place to place.

I think part of the problem here is that part of the intent of the 2nd amendment was to support a CITIZENS militia. That purpose got corrupted around the time the progressive era in this country started - because like a lot of other things that made of the structure of a free republic - they had to be destroyed to promote progressivism and big government.

What I'm saying is: there is a the natural right to defend yourself - and then there is the right of citizens to organize on their own to defend themselves against the government. I think the 2nd amendment was meant to cover BOTH of those things. Pure individual self defense should allow a person to own pistols and rifles - if there is ANY compromise to be made - then IMHO maybe the compromise is this: serve in a militia - and you can now own full auto and thing such as grenade launchers , anti tank TOW missiles - etc. , in other words : LIGHT infantry weapons.

This would cover both the individual self defense aspect of the natural right expounded on by the 2nd amendment - and - it would also cover the militia aspect.

Good luck getting the government or the bulk of anti gun people to go for this though. Although that guy in Westford who was proposing the town AWB did bring this up. So the seeds are out there - even among those who don't like guns.

 

[calsdad]

I might accept "universal background checks" in exchange for suppressors, SBRs and full auto being taking off the NFA list and nationwide CCW. Maybe, but only after I have my full auto, suppressed SCAR in hand.

I'll never have to make this decision though because the antis are *never* willing to give anything.

That's the problem. Antis are just looking for any way - direct or indirect - to push their agenda thru.

 

[atmay]

Neither the states or federal govt. should have any say. The 2A says so in the line "the right of the people to keep & bear arms shall not be infringed".

....you just quoted Federal law there, bub. Thank you for proving my point.

 

[wahsben]

I quoted the 2A in the BOR which is a restriction on the fed. govt. It is constitutional law that the feds are supposed to be bound by.
The 2A is an amendment that recognizes a natural right that existed and exists with or without it.

....you just quoted Federal law there, bub. Thank you for proving my point.

 

[42!]

Sure, if background checks for everyone should be very simple. Not currently in a prison...pass
National carry, easy. The government just needs to pass a laws saying the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed...oh wait

I really don't want someone who has been convicted of assault with a deadly weapon to have a gun just because he served his sentence.

 

[Quiet]

What if I want to go to temple, but all my neighbors are muzzies?

I'd say you should seriously think of GingTFO

 

[wahsben]

Do you think the law would stop someone like this from getting a gun if they want one? Also the way things are in this state and states like this a person that actually draws a gun to defend themselves from attack may be charged with assault with a deadly weapon even though they actually were defending themselves. Should they be deprived of their RKBA? In some papers they like to refer to people that defend themselves from violent attack by using a gun as vigilantes.

I really don't want someone who has been convicted of assault with a deadly weapon to have a gun just because he served his sentence.

 

[MisterHappy]

I really don't want someone who has been convicted of assault with a deadly weapon to have a gun just because he served his sentence.

How about someone that was convicted of a non-violent crime?

Suppose it was when he was 18, did 3 years, and has been a Minister and Saint for 20 years, is he still a bad guy?

And, if the guy you mention has already tried to off someone, do you think that saying, "No gun for you!" will keep him from buying one from an extra-legal source?

 

[atmay]

I quoted the 2A in the BOR which is a restriction on the fed. govt. It is constitutional law that the feds are supposed to be bound by.
The 2A is an amendment that recognizes a natural right that existed and exists with or without it.

Next thing you're going to tell me is that we've managed to land on the moon.

ETA: In an attempt to dumb this down enough that you don't think I'M the stupid one here:

The Constitution of the United States of America forms the basis for all Federal law, and is, per se, FEDERAL LAW.

Much like the MA state constitution forms the basis for MA state law, and is, in fact, MA STATE LAW.

The Constitution specifically covers the matter of gun ownership through the 2nd Amendment. It is, therefore, specifically preempted from being a State's Rights/10th Amendment issue.


So when I said "Firearms law is one of a very few places where the states shouldn't actually have any say. ", it was BECAUSE Federal Law (IE THE CONSTITUTION) has it covered, and indeed SHOULD theoretically stop the States from passing any further law on the matter.

 

[42!]

Do you think the law would stop someone like this from getting a gun if they want one? Also the way things are in this state and states like this a person that actually draws a gun to defend themselves from attack may be charged with assault with a deadly weapon even though they actually were defending themselves. Should they be deprived of their RKBA? In some papers they like to refer to people that defend themselves from violent attack by using a gun as vigilantes.

How about someone that was convicted of a non-violent crime?

Suppose it was when he was 18, did 3 years, and has been a Minister and Saint for 20 years, is he still a bad guy?

And, if the guy you mention has already tried to off someone, do you think that saying, "No gun for you!" will keep him from buying one from an extra-legal source?

Don't go adding to what I said. Convicted, not charged.

In my first post on this thread I said it was difficult to account for every possible circumstance. So your example of an 18 year old doing 3 years and being good for 20 is valid. A detail to be accounted for.

No law stops anyone from committing a crime if they don't think, or don't care, if they will be caught. But that doesn't make getting rid of all laws realistic or even rational. We also need truth in sentencing and prisons that punish, so criminals have good reason to not want to go back.

I again challenge everyone to write there own version of laws. When I finish my exercise in "what if I could write the law" I'll post it.

And for God's sake live in the real world, saying "no laws" and "it's my right" with no discussion (even if it is true), is just a cheap excuse for doing nothing. If you haven't figured it out, the anti-gun love it when someone does this, it's another person they can hold up as an example to the undecided "look...another irrational gun owner". I swear, some pro-gun do more for the anti-gun groups than they do for themselves.

And having moderate conversations with anti-gun liberals works. I know, I have some super liberal family members and having reasonable conversations with them, and setting a positive example of ownership and CC has definitely made headway in getting them to back off from their original, fanatical positions. This is going to be a long slow fight. If we accept that and keep working in the right direction, taking baby-steps, we will win. Maybe not, probably not, in our lifetimes but eventually.

 

[Quiet]

Beyond gun rights, forgiveness in our penal code is overdue. Convictions should be removed from people's records after a period of time.

Lack of hope for a better life probably drives a lot of recidivism, whereas a shot at a clean record might turn some people around.

As an added benefit, unless the Douches who run the various governments in the country ruin it, gun rights would (should) be restored.

 

[browncoat]

I have a compromise - universal background checks in exchange for a complete repeal of the GCA and its amendments. I'm pretty sure that without the GCA and its amendments, the background checks would be unenforceable because the serialization requirements would be gone, so guns wouldn't be traceable


Also we would get post 86 machine guns Take that hughes!

 

[weekendracer]

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?

since we're playing a game here, repeal of the Hughes Act (full autos if I misstated) and suppressors lose the 'icky bad aura' with the removal from the NFA?