Compromise - background checks in exchange for . . .

[BenDover]

How about a compromise that lets me call in a background check voluntarily using the same system that FFL's use (call it the vNICS check). Many benefits to this:

1) Everyone would put vNICS requirement in their online gun listings whether they plan to use it or not.

2) Anyone asking for a vNICS free sale would raise a red flag for most of us.

3) A felon wanting to buy a gun online would not bother asking because they out themselves.

4) Personally, I would have no issue doing a vNICS to cover my ass for someone I don't know well. Others I would not bother.

5) I suspect a very large number of people would take advantage of this especially if there were a law that provided immunity for anything bad that happened with the firearm....no criminal or civil lawsuits.

 

[Hoover]

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

-Mike

This. The op might not be giving up much but in free states which are 85% of them, they would get absolutely screwed. It wouldn't really be national carry either because with a few licenses, you can already carry in 85% of the states. You would be getting a handful of states for background checks. Screw that. (even if I were guaranteed it would last forever.

 

[Hoover]

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

How well did the checks do to stop the CO movie theater shooting, Gabby Giffords, Navy yard in DC, etc. All those plus many others passed checks. They don't do a thing.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

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

This was done in WA state years ago - background checks in return for changing "may issue" to "shall issue". It passed just before the Brady Bill - which would have given the other side what they wanted with nothing for our side. The antis tried to introduce legislation to repeal the "shall issue" but it did not go anywhere.

I have long thought that every time the other side professes "we are just trying to keep guns out of the wrong hands" that our side should offer to co-sponsor the background check IF and only IF, the bill includes mandatory shall issue. The only practical result would be exposing the antis true agenda, as they would never go for such a compromise in places like NY and NJ.

 

[Hoover]

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

A DUI conviction in MA makes you a PP. How does that keep the country safe by keeping a person who drove drunk from having a gun some day? The PP net doesn't just snare murderers, rapists, etc. those are the minority of those stuck as PP's.

 

[Quiet]

A DUI conviction in MA makes you a PP. How does that keep the country safe by keeping a person who drove drunk from having a gun some day? The PP net doesn't just snare murderers, rapists, etc. those are the minority of those stuck as PP's.

Maybe Baker will propose a bill to strip deadbeat dads of their gun rights. It's for the children.

 

[wahsben]

I agree that the states shouldn't have any say but neither should the Feds since the BOR is a restriction on them.

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.

 

[drgrant]

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.

So in other words, you don't believe in the legal tenet of someone serving their debt to society? Why not just shoot people in the head then that are violent felons, or put a mandatory life w/o parole sentence in place, instead of having laws which effectively burden the rest of us who are worthy of being free. If the person isn't in prison and they're ****ing dangerous, then do you really think that a paper gun law is going to stop them from getting a gun if they want to do something bad with it? Seriously? Oh wait, it "feels good".

-Mike

 

[wahsben]

There is a system called BID if I remember correctly that David Codrea has talked about on his War on Guns blog.
It is a blind ID system which is not supported by the antis because it would not work for registration and that is the real intent of background checks.

 

[atmay]

I agree that the states shouldn't have any say but neither should the Feds since the BOR is a restriction on them.

....you DO realize that the very restriction you're talking about is codified into federal law as part of the Constitution, right?

 

[wahsben]

Personally I prefer consequences over gun control laws since they mainly just disarm the innocent. If you commit a violent and or criminal act against a person or persons, break into a house etc. you take the risk of being seriously injured or killed by the victim.

 

[atmay]

You do realize that they don't obey that law, right?

orly? i hadn't noticed.

what does that have to do with you being to stupid to realize that the Constitution = law?

 

[wahsben]

...........

....you DO realize that the very restriction you're talking about is codified into federal law as part of the Constitution, right?

 

[wahsben]

Oh you're so smart. It is a restriction on them which is supposed to be the law but they don't recognize it as the law which is obvious by their infringements.

orly? i hadn't noticed.

what does that have to do with you being to stupid to realize that the Constitution = law?

 

[42!]

So in other words, you don't believe in the legal tenet of someone serving their debt to society?

On some things yes and others no, its COMPLICATED. I'm guessing you're the same. Or are you saying someone convicted of 12 DUIs and a couple manslaughter while DUI should be allowed a drivers license after a 2 year slap on the wrist sentence.... It's an example, no need to go on about how the state handles these.

Why not just shoot people in the head then that are violent felons, or put a mandatory life w/o parole sentence in place, instead of having laws which effectively burden the rest of us who are worthy of being free. If the person isn't in prison and they're ****ing dangerous, then do you really think that a paper gun law is going to stop them from getting a gun if they want to do something bad with it? Seriously? Oh wait, it "feels good".

-Mike

Really?
A bit off the rails don't you think? No one is saying we should go to extremes. In fact this kind of going to extremes is part of the problem.

I see criticism but no practical suggestions. And no, saying no laws is not a practical suggestion. Those of us in the real world know we can't bring back the old west. We need to work within the reality that is.

Rant all you want, but the hippies eventually learned they needed to work within the system. Now we call them liberals. We need to work within the system as well or we will lose.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

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.

MA already tried this trick. When the feds mandated "right on red except as otherwise posted" to qualify for highway funds, MA posted something like 90% of intersections "no turn on red". Eventually, MA got with the program.

 

[aeromarine]

Negotiated compromise may be the best way forward. Sooner or later universal background checks will become the law of the land. I believe they are inevitable.
Based on that assumption it would only make sense to try to get something in return. Yes, I agree mandates at the federal level are dangerous because they can be swept away with the stroke of a pen. But perhaps nationwide carry (and CCL shall issue rights for all states and local municipalities) can be implement by each state using a master set of protocols to which all states would be forced to comply. Additionally, at that point it would also make sense to permit nationwide purchases by eliminating the current state of residence restriction. Agree, this would be risky and the residents of some states could see some freedoms eroded while others would gain. However, I would love to see states like NY, NJ, MD, CA and HI forced to yield some of their abusive powers and restrictions when it comes to firearms purchases, possession and ownership.

 

[xtry51]

Negotiated compromise may be the best way forward. Sooner or later universal background checks will become the law of the land. I believe they are inevitable.
Based on that assumption it would only make sense to try to get something in return. Yes, I agree mandates at the federal level are dangerous because they can be swept away with the stroke of a pen. But perhaps nationwide carry (and CCL shall issue rights for all states and local municipalities) can be implement by each state using a master set of protocols to which all states would be forced to comply. Additionally, at that point it would also make sense to permit nationwide purchases by eliminating the current state of residence restriction. Agree, this would be risky and the residents of some states could see some freedoms eroded while others would gain. However, I would love to see states like NY, NJ, MD, CA and HI forced to yield some of their abusive powers and restrictions when it comes to firearms purchases, possession and ownership.

If you even for a second beleive the antis are going to "trade" or actually compromise, you are delusional and a huge part of the problem.

- - - Updated - - -

On some things yes and others no, its COMPLICATED. I'm guessing you're the same. Or are you saying someone convicted of 12 DUIs and a couple manslaughter while DUI should be allowed a drivers license after a 2 year slap on the wrist sentence.... It's an example, no need to go on about how the state handles these.



Really?
A bit off the rails don't you think? No one is saying we should go to extremes. In fact this kind of going to extremes is part of the problem.

I see criticism but no practical suggestions. And no, saying no laws is not a practical suggestion. Those of us in the real world know we can't bring back the old west. We need to work within the reality that is.

Rant all you want, but the hippies eventually learned they needed to work within the system. Now we call them liberals. We need to work within the system as well or we will lose.

I'm not concerned about working in the system or losing.

Voting is not going to get your rights back.

 

[42!]

I'm not concerned about working in the system or losing.

Voting is not going to get your rights back.

So please tell us all exactly what you want to do? And how it will work to change things.

I see criticism but no suggestion.

It's easy to sit back and criticize other peoples Ideas. It's a lot harder to come up with a solution.

 

[Squire]

1) ...shall not be infringed. 2A is the People's Law, that State and Federal government must follow.
2) compromise on background checks is a one way ticket to total prohibition and confiscation...even then, crazy and bad people will get guns and find other ways to cause tragic carnage. Humans are the underlying problem and cause that manifests itself in any sort of (including gun) violence.
3) The segment of the population that seeks to "do something" and disarm others because "their is not place for guns in civilized society" and #notonemore are going to tragically regret their current short-sightedness as they will perish (somehow, someway) at the hands of someone who could have been stopped by their fellow citizens who they fought so hard to disarm. With what happened in Paris, it may happen sooner than later.

That is all.

 

[Hoover]

Negotiated compromise may be the best way forward. Sooner or later universal background checks will become the law of the land. I believe they are inevitable.
Based on that assumption it would only make sense to try to get something in return. Yes, I agree mandates at the federal level are dangerous because they can be swept away with the stroke of a pen. But perhaps nationwide carry (and CCL shall issue rights for all states and local municipalities) can be implement by each state using a master set of protocols to which all states would be forced to comply. Additionally, at that point it would also make sense to permit nationwide purchases by eliminating the current state of residence restriction. Agree, this would be risky and the residents of some states could see some freedoms eroded while others would gain. However, I would love to see states like NY, NJ, MD, CA and HI forced to yield some of their abusive powers and restrictions when it comes to firearms purchases, possession and ownership.

Who gives a bleep about nationwide purchases when you are giving the gov full knowledge of what you have. Screw that. And you think the nationwide carry wouldn't have as many restrictions as the proposed carry set up the DC city council passed? It would be worthless, don't kid yourself.

Background check are not inevitable, they've been a dream for a long time and where are they now? The anti's are losing ground day by day, the country is moving more pro 2a as they see the gov't as unable to protect people and want their own protection.

You want to deal with the abuses of CA, NY, MD, MA, do it in federal court by kicking their asses. Comm2a, Gura, et al are doing it all the time. Look at the wikipedia animated graph on where conceal carry was legal in '86 and where it is now. The chart and the progress is impressive.

Stop being a pessimist and looking to accept some crumbs of freedom from the anti's and demand your rights.

 

[calsdad]

So in other words, you don't believe in the legal tenet of someone serving their debt to society? Why not just shoot people in the head then that are violent felons, or put a mandatory life w/o parole sentence in place, instead of having laws which effectively burden the rest of us who are worthy of being free. If the person isn't in prison and they're ****ing dangerous, then do you really think that a paper gun law is going to stop them from getting a gun if they want to do something bad with it? Seriously? Oh wait, it "feels good".

-Mike

Part of the problem here - is with the very concepts of how the legal system works.

If you break into my house at night and steal all my stuff - and then get caught and sent to jail - once you get out we say "served their debt to society".

But you didn't break into "society's" house - you broke into MY house. And I'M not the one getting to punish you - "society" is. I've seen number of philosopher/writers who point out - that this system is doubly ****ed up.

First off - your debt as a criminal is not to society IT'S TO ME. I'M the one you ****ed over. And to a criminal - when they're getting anonymously punished - by "society" , a lot of them simply don't relate the punishment to the crime. So they walk away just feeling like they got ****ed over by "society".

Crime never goes away - because nobody in the system ever gets paid back for the crimes committed against them - or REALLY pays for the crimes committed against others.

The criminal justice system is dysfunctional at it's core.

 

[xtry51]

So please tell us all exactly what you want to do? And how it will work to change things.

I see criticism but no suggestion.

It's easy to sit back and criticize other peoples Ideas. It's a lot harder to come up with a solution.

My solution is simple. Civil War.

Let me know when you're ready, because that's what it's going to take. The official end of the USA and the formation of new countries.

 

[42!]

My solution is simple. Civil War.

Let me know when you're ready, because that's what it's going to take. The official end of the USA and the formation of new countries.

I think I'll pass. It just seems un-American.

But at least you had the balls to come out and say it.

 

[IvIax]

You want to protect 2A. The goal should be increasing the number of legal gun owners. After that, I don't believe a second the government can take our guns away when most of us have them. Any compromise can achieve this goal is worthy to be looked at.

 

[dcmdon]

I'm just amazed. I posted this at 3:45 today, took my kids to gymnastics, fed them dinner played with them, put them to bed and I come back to find NINE PAGES. holy crap. I guess I touched a nerve.

I'll start reading now.

 

[xtry51]

I think I'll pass. It just seems un-American.

But at least you had the balls to come out and say it.

Un-American to overthrow tyrannical government?

I think you should slowly re-read the DOI.

 

[drgrant]

I come back to find NINE PAGES.

You need to fix your prefs, this is a 3 pager for everyone else.

-Mike

 

[dcmdon]

Many of you seem to be bringing up the idea of states rights and federalism.

You seem to be missing one point. One of the few legitimate uses of the federal government is to use the supremacy clause of the constitution to over-rule the states when their laws are INFRINGING on people's natural rights, including those in the bill of rights.

So said another way. It was the founders intent that the federal government's power be used to ensure that none of the states infringe on their citizens rights.

ok back to reading. I'm on page 2

 

[xtry51]

Many of you seem to be bringing up the idea of states rights and federalism.

You seem to be missing one point. One of the few legitimate uses of the federal government is to use the supremacy clause of the constitution to over-rule the states when their laws are INFRINGING on people's natural rights, including those in the bill of rights.

So said another way. It was the founders intent that the federal government's power be used to ensure that none of the states infringe on their citizens rights.

ok back to reading. I'm on page 2

My reply to that would be the federal gov't RARELY ever actually does that actively, certainly not in enough cases to warrant their continued existence.

Any kind of "test" you have to pass to get permission to purchase or carry a firearm is an infringement. I think that's pretty ****ing obvious. What is also obvious is neither the state's nor the Feds give a shit about the constitution or my rights, so in return I don't give a shit what they think I should and should not be doing. It's a two way street.