Wouldn't it make sense?


PDA






Whitman31
January 22, 2009, 08:36 PM
This may not be popular here at THR, but what are the arguments against making all gun transfers go through a NICS check? This would be a hassle for those of us who like to buy and sell from people we know, but it might help keep guns out of the hands of the guys who aren't supposed to have them.

Sure the criminals can still buy from each other, but if a gun is recovered from a crime they would actually know who is supposed to own it.

The one downside I see is that the government would know what your keeping in your safe, at least the guns you purchased after something like this took effect.

It just seems like a law like this would be a good thing for gun owners. I don't feel particularly strong about this, so please let me know where the flaws are...

If you enjoyed reading about "Wouldn't it make sense?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
calaverasslim
January 22, 2009, 08:43 PM
The check does nothing except let the dealer(seller) know that the buyer has no reason to refuse to sell.

What your suggesting is a mass registration. That is against federal law at this time. Now states can mandate registration but the federal govt. can't.


Germany mandated mass registration and if you think about it, you'll know what happened.

We don't want that here

highorder
January 22, 2009, 08:50 PM
No.

I don't need to involve anyone in the sale of private property.

subknave
January 22, 2009, 09:09 PM
Another problem is implementation. Some gun dealers charge 50-75 dollars for a transfer. If I am selling a 75 dollar .22 to my neighbor why would I want to spend more for a dealer to make a phone call. I think the law would be widely ignored and very dificult to enforce creating a whole new class of "criminals". Its only use would be as a bludgeon on those people whose guns are recovered in a crime. The DA would say how did this person get your gun? Either they stole it or you didn't do the proper paperwork to transfer it so now you go to jail as well. God forbid someone doesn't file a theft report or doesn't realize that the gun they put in the closet X number of years ago is gone because your sons friend took it. While it may seem like a good idea on the surface the unintended consequences could be very bad.
Now it would be a good idea to have a number or way for the private citizen to do a NICS check voluntarily. If you could just call up and say I want to transfer a gun to (this person) and make sure they are okay but again we would run into problems of privacy and how would you prevent someone from calling up saying they were doing a transfer just to check out their daughters new boyfriend or a coworker or employers checking on prospective employees? Still the bottom line is how would anyone know if you didn't do the check? Most crimes have a complainant such as the victim. Who would be the victim here? Victimless crimes are pretty much crimes just to make lawyers money IMHO and useless.

Jim K
January 22, 2009, 09:19 PM
The current check does not involve firearms model or serial number data, only long gun or handgun.

I agree that an NICS check on private sales would be widely ignored or violated, and could easily be abused by individuals or by the government.

For example, letting your son use your shotgun without a NICS check would be a felony, with imprisonment and confiscation of your guns.

Of course if some in Congress and the new administration get their way, there will be no need to worry, since there won't be any privately owned firearms.

Jim

ConstitutionCowboy
January 22, 2009, 09:35 PM
This may not be popular here at THR, but what are the arguments against making all gun transfers go through a NICS check? This would be a hassle for those of us who like to buy and sell from people we know, but it might help keep guns out of the hands of the guys who aren't supposed to have them. ...

The popular answer is to keep the criminals who cannot be trusted with arms locked up until they can be trusted - if ever. That would make all the rest moot and negate any "reason" for the NICS to exist at all.

Get a clue: It isn't about crime control. It's about eventually disarming everyone and making us dependent upon government and slaves to it.

From the movie "V":

"I want everyone to remember WHY THEY NEED US!"

Woody

"Charge the Court, Congress, and the several state legislatures with what to do with all the violent criminals who cannot be trusted with arms. We law abiding citizens shouldn't be burdened with having to prove we are not one of the untrustworthy just because those in government don't want to stop crime by keeping violent criminals locked up." B.E. Wood

gc70
January 22, 2009, 09:51 PM
but it might help keep guns out of the hands of the guys who aren't supposed to have them. (emphasis added)

It might help, but show some proof that it would help to any significant degree. Is there even any statistical evidence that the requirement for dealers to run NICS checks helps?

As long as guns exist (and they are not going away), bad guys will be able to get guns. The only real question is whether good guys will also be able to get guns.

twoclones
January 22, 2009, 10:08 PM
but it might help keep guns out of the hands of the guys who aren't supposed to have them.


Another way, when selling to a stranger, is to only sell to those with concealed carry permits.

Grey54956
January 22, 2009, 11:04 PM
I've been thinking about the same thing as of late.

I hate the idea of registration, but the gov't and the liberal elite seem to think that their going to legislate us to death. And while we appear unwilling to compromise, we seem more obstinant, crazed, and paranoid to fence sitters and the non-gunning crowd. Perhaps we need to embrace registration in some form, claim its our idea, and push it through under our power as opposed to having it imposed on us. As long as the gunner world goes and hammers it through, we can push for free background checks, class III registrations, etc, etc...

If we wait for it to be pushed on us, then we end up getting what we get.

Maybe we need a title system similar to automotive titles, i.e. pink slips as a legal bill of sale.

ConstitutionCowboy
January 22, 2009, 11:25 PM
I've been thinking about the same thing as of late.

I hate the idea of registration, but the gov't and the liberal elite seem to think that their going to legislate us to death. And while we appear unwilling to compromise, we seem more obstinant, crazed, and paranoid to fence sitters and the non-gunning crowd. Perhaps we need to embrace registration in some form, claim its our idea, and push it through under our power as opposed to having it imposed on us. As long as the gunner world goes and hammers it through, we can push for free background checks, class III registrations, etc, etc...

If we wait for it to be pushed on us, then we end up getting what we get.

Maybe we need a title system similar to automotive titles, i.e. pink slips as a legal bill of sale.

Why don't you push for keeping those who cannot be trusted with arms locked up? It solves ALL the problems associated with criminals loose on the streets with guns, and the rest of us won't have our rights infringed as the Second Amendment says the government shouldn't do in the first place!

The Constitution still means something to most of us, and locking up dangerous criminals is perfectly constitutional. Just think: Keeping dangerous criminals locked up will keep us safer, and our Right to Keep and Bear Arms won't be infringed! That makes it a two-fer at the very least!

Tell the liberal elite to legislate the criminals to death! This is supposed to be a free society, and the quickest way to serfdom is to allow the "liberal elite" to disarm us, and the quickest way for the "liberal elite" to disarm us is to tell them who has all the guns and where they live.

As an added solution, you can vote for conservative constitutional originalist. Whether they like guns or not doesn't matter. They'll abide the Constitution and leave you and your guns alone.

Got that? ...........................Good!

Woody

Our government was designed by our Founding Fathers to fit within the framework of our rights and not vise versa. Any other "interpretation" of the Constitution is either through ignorance or is deliberately subversive. B.E. Wood

ozarkhillbilly
January 22, 2009, 11:31 PM
Compromise, I thought we had been compromising; we have thousands of gun laws on the books.

We can't own full auto, we can't import full auto, we can't own certain calibers, we can't own certain sizes, we can't carry without permission, we can't mail order, and we can't buy from a dealer without permission. Now you want to say we can't pass on or give or sell without permission.

Anybody who thinks that, this will satisfy the gun grabbers does not understand what is going on. That would be just a good first start at common senses gun laws for them that ends in the total ban of firearms.

gc70
January 22, 2009, 11:52 PM
And while we appear unwilling to compromise, we seem more obstinant, crazed, and paranoid to fence sitters and the non-gunning crowd.

I am all for compromise and we can show the anti-gunners that giving up on some of their unreasonable positions does not result in blood on the streets or more crime. Reopening the NFA registry might be a good place to start.....

Grey54956
January 22, 2009, 11:58 PM
I'm just thinking that we need to be proactive in securing our rights.

We all know that straw buying occurs with some regularity. We all know that stolen guns make it into the wrong hands. And we all know that both phenomena are used to mislead the public into supporting anti-2A politicians. Their point of argument is exactly that "as long as there are weapons available, criminals will have weapons." So, their solution is the long term elimination of all personal arms. While we know that this is a statistical impossibility, to the common man, the logic is hard to argue with. Certainly, if guns are eliminated, gun crime will also be eliminated. If guns are significantly reduced in number, then surely gun crime must follow. While we know this is falacious, it does make some sense on the surface. The reason it doesn't work, of course, is that arms will go underground, with criminals largely ignoring any prohibitions. But again, common folk don't typically give this any thought. They merely blindly follow whatever line of chum the media has thrown to them.

Maybe we need to start appearing reasonable and cooperative. If we're driving the bus, then we drive it wherever we want, as opposed to just going along for the ride.

Registration, if it ever should come to that, should be free, easy to complete, and should come with legal guarantees.

A title, or proof of ownership should be available, that makes provisions for sale to other individuals. This should also be free.

The gov't might know who has arms, but if they decide to round folks up, then we'll all know that it's time for a new gov't. They can't round up 100 million folks all at once. Nor can they round up 50 miilion, 20 million, or so on.

But, we need to drive the bus where we want it. Otherwise, we will inevitably find ourselves run over by it.

Titan6
January 23, 2009, 12:02 AM
it might help keep guns out of the hands of the guys who aren't supposed to have them.

It might if this were how criminals got guns. Since they don't it will do two things that are helpful: Diddly and squat.

It will also do many things that are not helpful. I don't want to do things that aren't helpful.

gc70
January 23, 2009, 12:16 AM
We all know that straw buying occurs with some regularity. We all know that stolen guns make it into the wrong hands. And we all know that both phenomena are used to mislead the public into supporting anti-2A politicians.

Let me see if I understand this idea. Since anti-2A politicians mislead the public, we should agree to something (registration) that does not prevent bad guys from getting guns. I think that falls into the "two wrongs does not make a right" category.

I'm just thinking that we need to be proactive in securing our rights.


How about being proactive by selling the concept that more guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens does not increase crime. We have had a renaissance in concealed carry over the last couple of decades and the dire predictions of the nay-sayers have not come true. Since the anti-gun folks were wrong about concealed carry, that should be a fair indication to the average citizen that they might also be wrong about their other paranoid fears about guns.

twoclones
January 23, 2009, 12:20 AM
We all know that straw buying occurs with some regularity.

Sorry but I do not know that and have no reason to believe that straw buying occurs with any regularity at all.

Grey54956
January 23, 2009, 12:20 AM
Compromise, I thought we had been compromising; we have thousands of gun laws on the books.

We haven't been compromising. We've been letting ourselves get run down by standing tall in the middle of the street.

We can't own full auto, we can't import full auto, we can't own certain calibers, we can't own certain sizes, we can't carry without permission, we can't mail order, and we can't buy from a dealer without permission. Now you want to say we can't pass on or give or sell without permission.

We've been saddled with restrictions because people demanded a solution, and we failed to provide anything other than braying about how our rights are absolute. Someone else offered a solution that seemed "reasonable" to a large segment of the population. Registration doesn't necessarily mean permission. It should work like the title on a car. You sign the title, the buyer signs the title. You keep a copy, he takes his copy to get a new title. This service should be free. If he instead goes and gets caught in a crack house/gang shootout/bank robbery/etc with the firearm, its not the original sellers problem. If the gun ends up in someone else's hands, and they can't show proof of ownership, drop the hammer on them and off to jail. Title should also be proof of ownership for purposes of retreiving stolen or lost property from impound. If you car gets stolen, then turns up later, the cops don't melt it down. You get it back. The same should work for arms.

I am all for compromise and we can show the anti-gunners that giving up on some of their unreasonable positions does not result in blood on the streets or more crime. Reopening the NFA registry might be a good place to start.....

Exactly. If we're going to get stuck with registration someday, and it will happen, let's do it on our terms. Registration is free. Registration is open to all firearms and other personal arms (machine guns, SBRs, anti-tank rifles, silencers, imports, mail order, etc.) Registration or title does not expire. Re-registration is not necessary.

If we look like the reasonable, logical, respectable, and reponsible side of the argument, our position will be much more secure and popular. This leaves the liberal elites standing in the middle of the road.

Whitman31
January 23, 2009, 12:51 AM
I guess the whole "lead the compromise" trail was the one I was trying to go down. I agree that we've fought hard to keep our rights, and that many of them have been trampled terribly. We all know that we're in for changes, and those changes will most likely be pushed upon us as in the past.

The current NICS check doesn't register the s/n of the gun, but the S/N is logged on the 4473 form. I used to work behind a counter and more than a couple times a year we poured over old 4473's because the local cops wanted to know who purchase a weapon that was used in a crime.

When working behind the counter of a large sporting goods store, we regularly had small groups of thugs (every race) come in and look at guns. You knew they were trouble, but couldn't "profile" them. They would pick out a gun and one would produce a permit to purchase. The NICS check would clear, and thug would walk out with a shiny new piece. Was this a straw purchase? His argument was that he wanted his buddies to help him pick out a gun. I guess my thoughts on the registration are, that guy had a clean record, he'd done a decent job of staying out of trouble (or at least a good job of not getting caught). If that gun he just bought came with permanent responsibility he might not sell it to his lifelong buddy who couldn't get a permit because of a felony, knowing any crime committed with it would be directly tied to him.

Registration right or wrong, I don't think anyone should be able to acquire a gun who doesn't meet the requirements. Being able to sell private, without record, leaves a huge hole in the system.

ozarkhillbilly
January 23, 2009, 01:00 AM
Maybe, we should be reasonable and give up our AR-15s and semi shotguns and regular capacity mags for handguns. Maybe we should be reasonable and not let people in big cities have handguns, because we all know that big cities have higher crime rate and need more protection. Also does anyone really need more than one gun a month?

If we as gun owners jump out in front and do this ourselves then maybe we can appear reasonable. Then maybe if we are really nice they will let us keep a few of our guns at least for a while.

Whitman31
January 23, 2009, 01:09 AM
If I'm reading this right, and I'm probabaly not, it looks like Minnesota already requires a form of government approval before a private party transaction.

A person without a transferee permit or carry permit must utilize a transfer report in order to purchase a handgun or semiautomatic military-style assault weapon. The transfer report contains the identification information and statement attesting qualification as required in the transferee permit, and must be signed by the transferor and the proposed recipient. The transferor must deliver the report to the police chief or sheriff no later than three (3) days after the date of the agreement to transfer, excluding weekends and legal holidays. No fee is charged for the transfer report. Upon receipt of a transfer report, the police chief or sheriff investigates the potential recipient. A handgun or assault weapon cannot be delivered until five (5) days until after the agreement to transfer is delivered to the police chief sheriff. The police may waive all or part of the seven (7) day waiting period. At the end of five (5) days, the handgun or assault weapon may be transferred if the transferor hears nothing unfavorable from the police. There is no restriction on the number of handguns or assault weapons a person may acquire as part of a single transfer report.
Once a police determination has been made that a handgun or assault weapon recipient is not prohibited from possessing a handgun or assault weapon, the recipient may, within 30 days after the determination, apply to the police chief or sheriff for a handgun or assault weapon transferee permit, and the permit shall be issued.
A person transferring a handgun or assault weapon to a person exhibiting a transferee permit or carry permit is not required to file a handgun or assault weapon transfer report.
After a determination has been made that the person receiving a handgun or assault weapon is not precluded from possessing one, the person may request that no record be kept of the fact that he is the recipient of a handgun or assault weapon. The police chief or sheriff shall sign the transfer report and return it to the person receiving the handgun or assault weapon. Thereafter, no government employee or agency shall maintain a record of the transfer that identifies the person who received the
handgun or assault weapon.
The requirements of a transferee permit, permit to carry, or report of transfer and a seven (7) day waiting period do not apply to transfers between federally licensed firearm dealers or transfers of antique firearms acquired as curiosities or for their historical significance or value.
No person shall transfer a handgun or assault weapon to another who is not personally known to the transferor unless the proposed recipient presents evidence of his identity.

Taken from: http://www.nraila.org/statelawpdfs/MNSL.pdf

Ohio Gun Guy
January 23, 2009, 01:44 AM
No F-in way. Not registering my guns.

Not yours, cant have.

gc70
January 23, 2009, 01:44 AM
If we look like the reasonable, logical, respectable, and reponsible side of the argument, our position will be much more secure and popular. This leaves the liberal elites standing in the middle of the road.

We are already there. So let's reach a compromise with the anti-gun forces; they can give up on some of their unreasonable, illogical, and irresponsible positions.

There is a difference between appeasement and compromise. It is not a compromise when one side is always giving and the other side is always taking. The anti-gun forces have been taking, and taking, and taking, for years. It IS time for a compromise, but they are the ones that need to give rather than take.

Prince Yamato
January 23, 2009, 02:23 AM
Registration is worthless and does nothing positive. It would also be prohibitively expensive (ex. Canadian gun registry). The background check doesn't bug me, because at least when I go to a dealer, I know he's not selling to criminals. I think NICS should be open to all who would like to do a FTF transfer and free-of-charge. I do not think it should be mandatory though.

If that gun he just bought came with permanent responsibility he might not sell it to his lifelong buddy who couldn't get a permit because of a felony, knowing any crime committed with it would be directly tied to him.

He wouldn't sell it. He'd buy a bunch of guns and then one day report them "stolen".

TX1911fan
January 23, 2009, 03:16 AM
Registration right or wrong, I don't think anyone should be able to acquire a gun who doesn't meet the requirements. Being able to sell private, without record, leaves a huge hole in the system.


Again, what makes you think criminals are going to perform a background check to sell or give a gun to their buddy? There is no hole in the system! Guns are private property and should be treated as such. If I want to sell my car, I do it, even though it is capable of being used in crimes and of killing people. I don't have to perform a background check on the guy buying it, and if he chooses not to register it, that is not my problem either. If he uses it in a crime, and the cops come after me, I tell them I sold it and that's that. Same thing goes for knives, bats, clubs, swords, scissors, rat poison, chemicals and a whole host of other dangerous items I have laying around my house.

YOU guys are the problem, thinking that by appeasing anti-gunners they will eventually leave us alone. They won't. They'll gladly accept your "reasonable" regulations, and then push them farther and farther. If you start with this compromise crap and think you are "driving the bus", you are deluded. You'll drive your bus to your destination and they will promptly kick you off and drive it to where they want to go, all the while being smug and happy that they got you to do some of the driving.

I am NOT ashamed of standing up for my Constitutional rights. You should be ashamed that you are.

Whitman31
January 23, 2009, 09:43 AM
TX1911fan
I am NOT ashamed of standing up for my Constitutional rights. You should be ashamed that you are.

So you're saying I should be ashamed for standing of for my Constitutional rights, not really following you on that one...

Things are gonna change, you can stand on your soapbox all day/night shouting "Viva 2A", but it might be smart to have a back-up plan. Is registration it, probably not, but a number of points of view were expressed in this thread that made me more informed, and since that was the purpose, I'm satisfied...

Nothing like being open minded...

deaconkharma
January 23, 2009, 09:53 AM
you register yours and quit making bargains on behalf of the rest of us.

!#$@^$%&%!%&**O)*)*:cuss:

MD_Willington
January 23, 2009, 09:58 AM
You know, if you want to pre-arrange a sale, you can do a background check yourself, not a NICS check, but still a criminal record check, or only do a FTF with a person with a carry permit...

Pushrod
January 23, 2009, 11:12 AM
:eek: Oh my God! I can't believe a fellow gunny is even sugesting this!
Ask the 50 cal. people in California how great an idea registration is.
The State: Please just register those evil 50 cal. sniper rifles, we just want to know who has them, that is all. We wont bother them.
Then they later ban the 50 cal and give a certain time limit to turn them in. It was only a matter of checking the registrations to see who hadn't turned theirs in and then sending the JBT's to bust down their front doors and put guns in the face of everyone in the household as they tear apart your home looking for the outlawed weapon. :banghead:

So we register our weapons in the hope this will soothe the anti's. It wont, it will be used against us again and again as they outlaw one class of weapon after another and then break down our doors to retrieve them when we don't compromise some more and turn them in.
This is a BAD BAD idea. You have to see that. :cuss:
We either have to all hang together in support of our rights or we will surely be hung separately!

czarjl
January 23, 2009, 11:40 AM
I think it is rather simple really, law abiding citizens are just that law abiding. Laws only work for people that follow them. At most all this will do is punish those of us that obey the law. The BG will still be doing criminal things. Lot of stuff has be illegal for longer than any of us can remember and people are still getting raped, murdered and robbed. Making laws that make ignorant people “feel good” don’t do anything to stop the BGs, mostly they punish the rest of us.

subknave
January 23, 2009, 11:47 AM
"We all know that straw buying occurs with some regularity. We all know that stolen guns make it into the wrong hands. And we all know that both phenomena are used to mislead the public into supporting anti-2A politicians. "

First, what you KNOW and the TRUTH are often different things.

Second, Appeasement does little to stop someone bent on a certian agenda. Just ask Chamberlain and his policy of appeasement for Hitler.

paul
January 23, 2009, 11:59 AM
Good Grief...
When did we start getting all these Brady shills?:confused:
Private property is just that, private.
Firearm transactions between citizens should be treated exactly like selling a hammer.
The analogy is not that far-fetched...
Guns are tools, unable to cause mischief without the intent or negligence of the user.
Please don't feed the trolls.
p

ConstitutionCowboy
January 23, 2009, 12:24 PM
Trolls give us an opportunity to espouse the truth. Trolls are easy to recognize. They completely ignore you when you hit them with the truth.

Woody

Titan6
January 23, 2009, 02:02 PM
We all know that straw buying occurs with some regularity.
Sorry but I do not know that and have no reason to believe that straw buying occurs with any regularity at all.

Surprisingly :rolleyes: This information was rather hard to come by.

http://www.atf.gov/pub/fire-explo_pub/pdf/followingthegun_internet.pdf

The last year the ATF talks of arrests for straw purchases was 2000. There were 26,000 guns taken from straw purchasers with an average of 37 guns per person.
26,000/ 37 = 702 people arrested for straw purchase.

When looking at the raw case load we have:
Investigations: Firearms trafficked by straw purchaser or straw purchasing ring Total=709 percentage of cases= 46.3%

This is actually less than the number of people working to actively arrest people for straw purchases at the ATF. So either the ATF is the most incompetent agency in the Federal Government or there isn't as much crime as the media would like to sensationalize you into believing.

Now I am not saying these people shouldn't have to try to figure out a way to justify their jobs but I think that we can agree that less than a 1000 people committing a crime in a country of 300,000,000 is something a little less than regular. Unless you think 1 out of 300,000 is regular. In which case you are on the wrong side because logic doesn't work on you.

Whitman31
January 23, 2009, 05:05 PM
I'd like to clarify, I'm not suggesting that we register our guns. I'm asking for the arguments against it. Simply trying to become more informed. I may argue the point, but only to fully understand it. I have not intention or desire to tell the government whats in my safe...

CoRoMo
January 23, 2009, 06:09 PM
I'd like to clarify, I'm not suggesting that we register our guns. I'm asking for the arguments against it.

It is a solution without a problem. Trying to fix something that isn't broke. It is another infringement on a non-negotiable right. It does zip/zilch/nada to prevent criminals from using firearms in their crimes. It has absolutely no affect on crime. It is an infinitely costly, impractically obtainable, and unquestionably unimplementable idea.

Titan6
January 23, 2009, 06:16 PM
It is an infinitely costly, impractically obtainable, and unquestionably unimplementable idea.

See, now that sounds like a perfect project for the government.

CoRoMo
January 23, 2009, 06:24 PM
I might have put too many adverbs in that sentence, but you get the point.:neener::D:neener:

TX1911fan
January 23, 2009, 06:40 PM
Whitman, it appeared to me that you are ashamed of standing up for your 2A rights, advocating that we adopt a more "open minded" approach to what you feel is inevitable anyway. You appeared to me to think that staunchly holding your ground for your 2A rights is something bad, and for that, you should be ashamed. That was my point.

dbarile
January 23, 2009, 06:45 PM
I believe the law on private guns sales vary somewhat by state.

As I read the ATF site you are free to sell long guns privately as long as you do not know or suspect that your buyer is prohibited from buying a gun. IF you know your buyer is 14, or a felon, etc. then you don't sell.

I know a local seller (NC) who required a buyer to show him a pistol permit along with his driver's license. His logic was, "My gun, My Rules". If you didn't have a permit, you couldn't buy his gun. That seems fine with me, it was HIS gun.

If you have a problem with private sales, then don't sell or buy privately. Sell your guns and buy your guns from a dealer.

I don't know why people are so concerned with legal sales between private individuals. I don't believe that this loop hole is a major source of guns for criminals. There are already rules against proxy buying. Perhaps they should prosecute those first.

If you think making private sales illegal will somehow satisfy or slow down the antis then you are deluding yourselves.

CoRoMo
January 23, 2009, 07:06 PM
...if a gun is recovered from a crime they would actually know who is supposed to own it.

What is the usefulness of that information? It is now evidence and will be stored then destroyed.

Things are gonna change, you can stand on your soapbox all day/night shouting "Viva 2A", but it might be smart to have a back-up plan.

I keep hearing this threat from the fascists trying to disarm this nation's citizens. "Things are going to change." Not without the fiercest resistance to that change. I'm all for change in favor of my rights, but not the other way.

Our main objectives should be to...

A. Repeal current infringements


B. Prevent further infringements


Backup plan? No, repeat the primary plan. If the line in the sand is moved by the anti-2A crowd, continue the fight to prevent further infringement and repeal existing infringement. Period.

Grey54956
January 23, 2009, 10:26 PM
Things are going to change. That's the nature of things. The anti-2A crowd is already beginning to discuss the repeal of the 2A as a goal in response to Heller.

Also, keep in mind that SCOTUS has said that the 2A does not prohibit regulation of arms. This means that some carefully worded, narrow laws will be passed that place "reasonable" restrictions on our rights. "Reasonable" is a relative term, of course, and will largely be defined by whoever is implementing the law. If it is defined by the Brady Bunch, you can bet your collection that it will not be what gun owners define as "reasonable". Heller may have been a victory for the 2A crowd, but it is one fraught with danger.

Private sales need not be illegal, nor should they require background check. It should be the buyer's responsibility to know whether he can legally buy a gun from an individual, and to abide by the laws of his state. That being said, there is no mechanism that keeps him honest. This is why people are talking about the so called "gun show loophole".

I don't take kindly to being called a troll or a schill. I know that registration isn't a good idea on the surface. It may be an entirely horrible idea. The fight for the 2A isn't a game of checkers, it's chess. We need to be several moves ahead of our opponents. We need to keep them off guard, off balance, and on the defensive. It doesn't matter that our position is right, it matters that we win and they lose. But we need to look at numerous strategies and options to do so. If we stick with one tactic, one strategy, they'll adapt and outflank us.

Kim
January 23, 2009, 11:07 PM
Things are going to CHANGE, My god we are going to have to watch what we say and print, and the theocrats are a coming around the bend, get ready to have to testify aganist yourself or else. I mean we MUST compromise cause if we don't they will take all our rights. SICK IDEA. NOT GONNA HAPPEN. SOMETHING IS GOING to change and that is the anti-2nd amendmant idiots. We are on the RIGHT side of history they are NOT. I will not give up. NEVER.

Leanwolf
January 24, 2009, 12:25 AM
Grey94596 and Whitman 13, you guys seem to base your ideas on why we gun owners should compromise (yet again and again and again and again ad nauseum) with the power mad gun grabbers, that if we just appease and compromise and "make nice," they will then smile benevolently, pat us on the head and say, "Thanks for giving up your Rights. Now go in peace and we'll not bother you anymore."

Huh uh. Doesn't work that way with the wannabee tyrants in D.C and most State houses. These neo-liberal Democrat do-right-daddies-and-mommas (and I certainly include the wimpy RINOs, also) never, ever disengage! There are never, ever enough anti-gun laws for them until they totally outlaws guns for us serfs, worker peasants and villeins.

When you urge us to just trust them and they'll be kind to us...... well, I am reminded of that line of dialogue from Blanche DuBois in the play, "A Streetcar Named Desire," by the late, great playwright, Tennessee Williams.

Blanche says, "I have always depended on the kindness of strangers."

Stanley looks at her as if she fell out of a tree on her head.

So you guys go ahead and "make nice" and depend on the kindness of strangers who'll take every advantage of your naivete, but I have no trust whatsoever of them when they demand I give up my Rights through their definition of "compromise."

By the way, crack your dictionary and check the definition of "compromise." Might surprise you.


L.W.

ConstitutionCowboy
January 24, 2009, 12:54 AM
Also, keep in mind that SCOTUS has said that the 2A does not prohibit regulation of arms.

Not quite true.

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second
Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through
the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely
explained that the right was not a right to keep and
carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever
and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume
346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott 333. For example,
the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the
question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed
weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or
state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann.,
at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2
Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n.
11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an
exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the
Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be
taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the
possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or
laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places
such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing
conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of
arms.26

Footnote 26:

26 We identify these presumptively lawful regulatory measures only
as examples; our list does not purport to be exhaustive.

See that word I put in bold? That means the Court has not addressed any of the regulatory measures and have not made the call.

Also, take a look at the second sentence in the above quote from DC v. Heller.

"From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose."

If one were to take the assertion that "and for what ever purpose" were to be included, then yes, the Second Amendment would have limitations. But, the Second Amendment does not protect any purpose(use) of arms; only the keeping and bearing thereof. No matter what weapon you kept and bore, in what ever fashion - not to include using the weapon for its designed purpose or in a fashion that would cause harm - is benign and innocuous. Totally harmless. Non-offensive. Not even defensive. Once you put it to work, however, then it must be in a fashion not in defiance of common sense, reasonable law.

You must be careful of the wording in these court decisions to fully analyze what the Court has - and has not - said. (The "decision" in US v. Miller is craftily written as well.)

Woody

I see it clearly as fact. Words mean things. Just as numbers have value, you can add, subtract, multiply and divide them. I just do the math. B.E. Wood

conserv1
January 24, 2009, 12:54 AM
Quote:
"We are already there. So let's reach a compromise with the anti-gun forces; they can give up on some of their unreasonable, illogical, and irresponsible positions.

There is a difference between appeasement and compromise. It is not a compromise when one side is always giving and the other side is always taking. The anti-gun forces have been taking, and taking, and taking, for years. It IS time for a compromise, but they are the ones that need to give rather than take."

The anti's will NEVER agree to any "compromise" with gun owners.
Why is it that instead of standing up for our rights, all of a sudden a lot of people are suddenly bending and folding when no REAL anti-gun legislation has even been passed?
The last time the dems f*%#ed with gun owners they got voted out of offices FAST! And do NOT for a minute believe they have forgotten that!
IF you believe in the 2A, then STAND UP FOR IT!!!
And quit thinking about what you are willing to "surrender" to lies and deceptions.
There is nothing about "Not to be infringed" that is difficult to understand.
Leave the kool aid alone! It's tainted!

ConstitutionCowboy
January 24, 2009, 01:01 AM
One more thing: The Constitution has granted no power to Congress to regulate the use of arms beyond the military, or the militia when in service. That is power reserved to the several states and to ourselves.

Woody

Art Eatman
January 24, 2009, 01:06 AM
I have been in this gun control war since 1967, in the lead-in to what became the GCA '68. I've learned a few things about those arrayed against us.

First is that they won't quit until there is no more private ownership of any firearms of any sort. It's a nibble/nibble/nibble process, since they have known in the past that they cannot achieve it in a short period. (At least, not until now.)

As firearms owners, we know the facts about firearms and crime. We know the actual capabilities of different types of firearms and different types of ammunition.

Having the facts is meaningless in this war--and it is indeed a war. Our foes readily lie about our guns and about us as a group. They twist words, take facts out of context and then offer false conclusions. In this modern U.S.A., perception is far more important than fact, and in the gun control issue it has been so for decades.

The original bill for GCA '68 proposed banning all handguns and registering all other firearms. The BATF was set up to deal with the new regulations, and it was Cong. John Dingell (D-Mich) who on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives first offered the term, "Jack-booted thugs".

We didn't have the votes to avoid the final form of GCA '68. We were betrayed in '86 on the last-minute ban on new full-auto weapons sales to individuals. Most of us are conversant about the foolishness of the ban on the media-named "assault weapons". We were very lucky to have enough lobbying stroke to get the sunset provision included. This time, I don't think we do. Some have been around since the days of "cop-killer bullets", another media idiocy.

None of the above have ever had any effect on the rate of violent crime in the U.S. None. Book it: It's substantiated in study after study after study.

And it doesn't matter, because the issue is not about reducing violent crime. It's about disarming the public--now, more than ever. My personal opinion is that there is a fear of an armed citizenry among many of our elected officials.

So "compromise" merely means that you'll get to keep some guns--but your kids or your grandkids won't. Nibble/nibble/nibble.

JImbothefiveth
January 24, 2009, 01:06 AM
I think the problem with background checks for gun shows is that it also affects private sales. That means U can't even sell, or possibly even give, a gun to someone like, say, my mother-in-law, without having to pay a fee for an FFL to check said mother-in-law's background.

gc70
January 24, 2009, 01:12 AM
Things are going to change. That's the nature of things.

Yes, things are going to change; they are changing and have been changing. But the recent trend of change has been pro-RKBA rather than anti-RKBA. We, rather than the antis, have been gaining ground over the better part of the last two decades. Concealed carry laws have spread to nearly every state, the AWB was not renewed, and now we have Heller affirming an individual Constitutional right.

The idea of giving the anti-RKBA folks what they can't get through their own efforts is simply repugnant to me.

The anti-2A crowd is already beginning to discuss the repeal of the 2A as a goal in response to Heller.

The anti-2a crowd has been discussing a whole lot of things for a long time, without much recent success. If they can't win on the little stuff, what makes you think they could succeed on something as ambitious as a Constitutional amendment?

Gungnir
January 24, 2009, 01:25 AM
I have a cunning plan. Go offensive.

Why can't we mount a serious attempt to repeal the NFA '68?

If we win, then hey, most of the stuff we have today will be perfectly legal in our kids and grandkids time. Even assuming some retrenchment of that repeal.

If we don't at least the GC Lobbyists will be target fixated on that attempt for the next 2 or more years, and it would put the GC lobby on hold until it's resolved.

Or is there something stopping this?

Cuda
January 24, 2009, 01:44 AM
I can't believe anyone would advocate registering their guns.. Have you learned nothing from history?


C

CoRoMo
January 24, 2009, 10:00 PM
Art... dude... you're making me scared.

But you're right.

If you enjoyed reading about "Wouldn't it make sense?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!