Guns: A proposed compromise

[Just reading posts]

Everyone seems to be throwing out what they want on this issue, so here goes:

By definition a compromise means each side has to engage in give and take. Here's my proposal:

The gun control side gets Universal Background Checks.

In return, the pro-gun rights crowd gets NFA (National Firearms Act) reform. SBRs (short barreled rifles) and silencers will no longer be restricted items requiring a $200 tax stamp and months of paperwork.

Each side gets something. Sound good?

[onehandle]

1. They have plenty. Give them nothing. No more Weapons Of War. Period. nt

[BootinUp]

3. lol nt

[Press Virginia]

6. When you find an AR-15 in anyone's military

let us know.

[Just reading posts]

8. No weapons of war? So a single shot Springfield 1873 rifle is verboten?

[yeoman6987]

50. We had 10 years of automatic weapons banned and columbine happened

What more then ban can we do?

[Duckhunter935]

55. It was not an automatic weapon ban

It was a cosmetic feature ban and AR style weapons were sold for those 10 years. There was also no effect on murder rates by semi-automatic rifles, that is why it sunsetted.

[safeinOhio]

2. One side gets 3 things

And the other gets only one. Let's put in 10 round mags and registration of all hand guns.

[Just reading posts]

7. I only count only two, arguably one. Silencers and SBRS, both of which arguably fall under the same

thing (NFA reform).

Let's put in 10 round mags

No way, no how.

and registration of all hand guns.

Hm....give me concealed carry reciprocity across state lines and we'll talk.

[safeinOhio]

9. So, you call

For compromise, but you are not willing to.

[Just reading posts]

13. Sure I compromised. I propose giving your side Universal Backgound Checks in return for NFA reform.

[Chan790]

62. Even at what you're offering and asking...

which I think is lopsided...I'd still insist that the time-frame limitation on background checks be dropped.

If it take 4 months to clear you, then you wait four months. Responsible gun owners will have no problem with this as for the vast majority of them, nothing is going to flag to make the wait longer than a few days.

[sir pball]

76. I'm good with that, actually.

I have two semiautos - one is an immense, ponderous, incredibly accurate, truly high-powered (308) deer rifle that I can only use 5-rounders in anyway. The second is a little carbine that I keep for home defense, it takes 10-round pistol mags. And handgun registration, duh. When Sam Colt made all men equal, it was with a freakin' pistol.

[SuperDutyTX]

4. I would completely support that

While I don't think UBCs will accomplish much (I mean how does that work with 300-400 million firearms, that have been sold for 100+ years, and have zero tractability?) I would fully support what you're proposing.

I would fully support removing suppressors and SBRs from the NFA; having those things be considered the same as a legitimate machine gun is mind blowing. In Europe, they sell suppressors "over the counter".

[pipoman]

70. There won't be federal requirement for UBCs...

Ever....or at least until there is a constitutional amendment...

[Press Virginia]

5. Don't forget a National CCW license

[roamer65]

20. The standards would have to be much higher for me to agree with it.

Some states permitting process is a joke and I'd really like to see Michigan kill reciprocity with them.

[Chan790]

63. Deal-breaker.

Some of us have fought too hard for our state laws forbidding concealed carry entirely.

[Straw Man]

64. Really?

Some of us have fought too hard for our state laws forbidding concealed carry entirely.

What state do you live in?

[Chan790]

66. Currently CT...which is may issue. (Though they refuse recognition of any other state.)

But it was Maryland where we pushed for a very-restrictive policy...most counties are "no issue" though the state is technically "may issue." Pretty much, only the rural western counties and Eastern Shore will issue.

PGC and Monty County you'd have better luck asking the county government for just about anything other than a concealed-carry permit...like an elephant or $1,000,000 in unmarked bills.

[Straw Man]

67. Well ...

Currently CT...which is may issue. (Though they refuse recognition of any other state.)

... then I wouldn't say that they "forbid concealed carry entirely."

CT had no problem issuing me a non-resident permit based on my possession of a NY permit. No automatic recognition, perhaps, but there wasn't much paperwork, it was all done by mail, and processing only took about six weeks (which by NY standards is fast).

But it was Maryland where we pushed for a very-restrictive policy...most counties are "no issue" though the state is technically "may issue." Pretty much, only the rural western counties and Eastern Shore will issue.

Nor do they forbid it entirely, then.

How does one "push for a policy"? Was there a referendum?

[Chan790]

68. No, you harass state lawmakers until they give you what you want...

just to get you stop calling them over and over in great multitudes.

Just like I hope many many DUers are doing to their pro-RKBA Senators...maybe they too will vote to restrict RKBA just to get some peace and quiet.

[Straw Man]

71. They are not the issuing authority.

No, you harass state lawmakers until they give you what you want...

just to get you stop calling them over and over in great multitudes.

State legistlators make the laws. You're talking about administration and enforcement.

May-issue is at the discretion of the issuing authority, which in Maryland is the Department of Public Safety. If a state legislator is making judgements or exerting influence on who does and doesn't get a permit, then there's some serious malfeasance going on.

[Chan790]

73. No, they make the laws setting the guidelines DSP follows.

They are absolutely the right people to harass.

[Straw Man]

75. It's not a matter of law.

No, they make the laws setting the guidelines DSP follows.

They are absolutely the right people to harass.

That's not how "may issue" works. In "may issue" states, there is a designated authority that is granted discretion to approve or deny permits. Beyond the setting of minimum criteria, the legislature has no role in the process. Are you saying that they changed the basic criteria through new or amended legislation? If so, why didn't it affect the western counties or the Eastern Shore? Or are you saying that they merely exerted pressure on the issuing authority to reduce the number of approvals in certain areas?

If it's the latter, I would call it corruption and influence peddling.

[Kang Colby]

10. Universal Background Checks

will cost a lot more than silencers and SBRs. But I commend you on a good start.

Minimally, I would like to see major NFA reforms including repeal of the Hughes amendment to FOPA. SBRs, SBSs, and silencers all move outside of NFA. National carry reciprocity, CMP 1911 sales to the public via FFL transfers, due process protections for seniors, veterans, and the mentally ill.

If that were offered I would be ok with so called UBCs as long as relatives were exempted.

[Just reading posts]

17. I bow to your better thought out proposal.

[Kang Colby]

19. My full proposal for UBCs is as follows:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=177959

I posted this earlier today, but I will reshare with a slight addition. UBCs are our golden bargaining chip, and it would be foolish to give it away without making real progress with respect to the right to keep and bear arms. Keep in mind, we were able to pass the PLCAA, so all of the items below are politically feasible in exchange for UBCs.

That's why I think it makes sense to fight UBCs tooth and nail for the next few years. If the decision is ever made to go along with UBCs it will truly be a compromise and we needn't give away the bargaining chip without something in return.

A) Repeal of the Hughes amendment
B) Authorize handgun purchases from FFLs across state lines
C) National Concealed Carry reciprocity with a federal option, background check based on NICS
D) Strengthening FOPA, enhanced legal protections for firearm owners
E) Grant funding for high school state athletic associations for shooting sports
F) Repeal of 4473 record keeping requirements.
G) Public audit of NICS program
H) Establishment of an FFL program for individuals to purchase firearms directly. It would be like an FFL 03, but could be used for non-C&R.
I) Legal protection from the ATF for NFA trusts. (The ATF has been threatening to phase these out for years, we need to stop that effort.)
J) Repeal of ammo restrictions in LEOPA
K) Repeal of 922r and all import restrictions on civilian firearms and components
L) Additional funding for the CMP
M) CMP handgun sales
N) Grant program for true firearm safety organizations and efforts
O) Reduce NICS checks maximum processing time to 24 hours
P) Funding to "fix NICS", as supported by groups such as the NSSF.
Q) Removal of SBRs/SBSs/handguns with vertical grips and suppressors from NFA requirements
R) Restrict the Department of State from blocking the free exchange of cad files or similar design tools for CNC machines and 3D printers associated with civilian small arms.

If we can get those line items addressed, I would be supportive of UBCs, with exemptions for relatives.

[Just reading posts]

32. I leave my response to these good people:

[Kang Colby]

52. Too generous of you.

Most of what I posted could make it out of the House, but would never get out of the current Senate or past our President's veto pen. The issue has become too polarized. But it's time we Democrats start speaking out and demand support for gun rights from our elected officials.

But we can keep pushing, keep up the political fight, and we will prevail. We are freedom's safest place, which is anywhere other than a gun free zone.

The fruit of our tireless effort.

[Crepuscular]

21. In return for all of those

I'd be willing to add a firearms owners license on the UBC side of the equation, just to balance it up a little.

[Kang Colby]

24. Scrap NFA

and make the FOID a requirement only for those that want to purchase machine guns or destructive devices...

And you might have a deal 😄

[Just reading posts]

30. We have a winner!

[Kang Colby]

40. Check this out.

Gun control advocates like to say that gun owners are unreasonable. Check this post out I made last night. Who seems unreasonable? When gun control proponents say, gun owners NEVER offer solutions ---

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027916100

[scscholar]

11. So they more easily get away with murder with silencers?

Think about what you are proposint!

[SuperDutyTX]

14. hah!

You ever been around a suppressed rifle/pistol?

They're pretty darn loud if you're shooting 99.9% of the ammunition available on the market today.

[Press Virginia]

15. Hahahahahahahahahaha!

Silencer

[Duckhunter935]

16. you do know it is not the movies

silencers do not silence the weapon, just cuts down on the crack slightly.

[JonathanRackham]

29. So in theory if we put one in Trump's mouth.....

.....we'd only mute him?

[Duckhunter935]

49. That is disgusting, never joke about muzzles in peoples mouths

Firearms are not a joking matter. And by the way Trump is a first class asshole

[JonathanRackham]

58. Can one be screwed on his lips.

[Duckhunter935]

59. That I can agree with

[JonathanRackham]

77. ..

[maxsolomon]

12. "Months of paperwork"

My heart bleeds.

UBCs are a bandaid on a sucking chest wound. You cannot screen intent.

Here's what's going to happen: not a goddamn thing.

[roamer65]

18. Shotguns, rifles and revolvers.

That's it. No more.

Flame away.

[Just reading posts]

23. So the rules regarding rifles and shotguns remain the same, but semiauto handguns are outlawed?

I can still have an AR-15, but not a Colt 1911? Please clarify.

[roamer65]

25. Simple 6 shot revolvers.

That's it.

[Just reading posts]

28. But we could still have semiauto "assault weapons"? You did say rifles and shotguns were allowed.

[roamer65]

31. Classic hunting rifles.

[Just reading posts]

35. Sounds like you want us to go to (roughly) Australia's level of gun control.

Not going to happen, of course.

[roamer65]

38. No Canada.

In Canada, you can own handguns after a much more background check and permitting process.

In Australia, you cannot own handguns. Even rifles and shotguns are severely restricted.

[Just reading posts]

46. But in Canada you're allowed to own semiautomatic handguns, as well as some "evil black rifles".

With magazine restrictions, mind you.

[roamer65]

51. I would be negotiable if the backgrounding process for those classes were even more rigorous.

Psychiatric evaluation and in person interviewing by a gun board.

[jmg257]

22. Hmm...Would you trade UBC with registration for National CCW?

[Just reading posts]

26. I think I'd be giving away more than I got. CCW is becoming the norm already.

[jmg257]

27. Nationwide reciprication I mean?

[Just reading posts]

33. Hm....not enough. Want more.

[jmg257]

41. Registration of handguns only? nt

[roamer65]

34. CA, NY, NJ and MA will not go along.

An appeals court has already upheld CA "may issue".

[Just reading posts]

36. I don't expect the West Coast or Northeast to respect gun rights any time in the foreseeable future.

[roamer65]

45. CCW isn't a right. It's a privilege. Just like a driver's license.

Drink too much under either one and see what happens.

[jmg257]

44. Yeah - federal steps into what has been state territory. nt

[Straw Man]

65. NY has a lot of gall ...

CA, NY, NJ and MA will not go along.

An appeals court has already upheld CA "may issue".

Texas has CCW training and qualifying requirements that are far more stringent than New York's. In fact, NY has no state-mandated training whatsoever, much less a live-fire qualification. And yet NY won't recognize a Texas permit.

It's bullshit culture war, and has nothing whatsoever to do with public safety.

[Squinch]

37. Get out a dictionary and look up the word "Massacre." So, no.

You are seriously saying that humpers need to be given something.

That's just sick.

[Just reading posts]

42. This is what a real compromise would look like, as opposed to someone saying that their "compromise"

is that they'll allow people to own traditional hunting weapons and nothing else.

[Squinch]

47. The NRA has stolen your humanity. And you let them.

Here's a thread that might be enlightening:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027916489

[Just reading posts]

48. Overdramatize much?

Here's a thread that might be enlightening:

Been there, done that.

[Squinch]

79. Thank you for proving my point. Laugh away.

[Straw Man]

72. Another graduate of the Ron White School of Rhetoric.

Here's a thread that might be enlightening:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027916489

Wherein we learn that the debate is won by the person who says "Fuck!" loudest and most often.

[valerief]

39. I thought I had all the ammosexuals on my Forever Ignored club. I missed you! nt

[Just reading posts]

43. And you kicked the thread just to tell me that? That's so sweet.....

[SwankyXomb]

53. Brand new account, but he sounds like a long time DUer

Probably got his account nuked and just made a new one

[Hoyt]

54. Exactly. Some Gungeoneers are on account 10, or so.

[Duckhunter935]

56. Proof?

[Straw Man]

74. He has none.

Haven't you figured that out yet?

[Duckhunter935]

78. I know, that's why I asked

It makes him look even worse when he does not answer

[cherokeeprogressive]

57. It actually took me a while to figure out you were joking.

[Daninmo]

60. If memorie serves

I believe the second amendment is the only one that says shall not be infringed. All the others allow for reasonable restrictions.

[Chan790]

61. No, RKBA activists getting too much and giving up too little.

Gun-control activists get universal gun-registration (with attached felony charges and permanent revokation of RKBA (e.g. states, like Florida does, cannot restore RKBA) for possession of an unregistered gun(s). They also get an expanded list of qualifications to retrain RKBA: history of violence, domestic violence, having been subject to FBI investigation for ties to organized crime, domestic or international terrorism for 5 years following the most-recent investigation. (unless cleared by investigation. "Cleared" is not ambiguous. It does not mean they failed to find connection...it means that the cause of suspicion was dismissed as non-credible.), mental illness leading to documented belief the individual may be of danger to self or others. Felony charges for possession of a 3d-printed gun without a "maker permit."

RKBA activists get NFA reform. Repeal on SBRs. Partial repeal on silencers...partial in that the tax is waived if a justifiable need is documented. (You can't have a silencer untaxed just because you want one...you have to have reason why you legitimately need one or else you pay the tax. There is social benefit in restraint-of-possession of a silencer.)

It's now lopsided in the other direction...want anything else? I'd like criminalization of possession of accessories meant to circumvent the restriction on fully-auto weapons by making semi-automatics function in a way that emulates burst or full-auto fire. (such as bump stocks.) Something to trade for it?

[pipoman]

69. See....this is real simple....

You, nor anyone else gets to negotiate the terms of the Constitution.