Compromises on gun control that we might accept. No, really, any good ideas?


PDA






Geckgo
January 29, 2013, 11:46 AM
I posted a message on facebook the other day in response to a discussion that I was having with some guys out here in the oil patch about gun control. What we give up when these so-called "gun control" legislations come up, etc. Thinking that instead of complaining about what's on the table, we need to contribute ideas that may (or may not) give antis the warm-fuzzy they need and possibly even take a small bite out of gun crimes, which would benefit all of us. At the same time, I hate legislation that leads to new laws of any flavor, but thought this was a cool idea, so I figured I would share.

This is the original post from FB, pardon the "Democrats" and "Obama" portions, it was meant to spark some attention:

Hey, Democrats. I got a compromize for you. Since Obama is all about handing out money for things that aren't rights guranteed in the constitution anyways (cell phones, stimulus, etc), how about handing out some money to protect our rights? How about a tax-break or govt subsidy for gun owners to help them fund security for their weapons. A lot of gun owners would be more inclined to buy a safe if they could write it off on their taxes. Just sayin'

The discussion amongst my co-workers was that without passing any new restrictions, making gun-safes, bed-safes, etc cheaper and easier for gun owners to purchase might actually spur them to do so. 1000 dollar safe = 1000 dollar tax-break? I'd bite.

Some things before they come up, just to be clear on my opinions:
1. Yes, govt spending needs to be cut back, not increased, but a tax write-off on a safe isn't that much money and probably less than the cost of trying to enforce some silly legislation.

2. There would need to be clear lines as to what exactly was covered by such a tax break.

3. The anti's don't want to support our common interest, but then again they gotta compromise too.

4. TaxID who claimed this WOULD show who bought safes/etc, so we could all banter about this being a step toward regristation or a national DB. Again, compromise. I don't want a national gun database, but I would like to put something on the table that could have intended consequences of reducing crime without further legislation against what I can and can't own.


Anyone else have any thoughts on something we could shoot off to our congressmen to dump on the "gun control" table?

If you enjoyed reading about "Compromises on gun control that we might accept. No, really, any good ideas?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
MtnCreek
January 29, 2013, 12:19 PM
Elimination of Gun Free Zones. That's what I've been asking of my reps. I agree we have to bring something to the table, but I fear some in congress will 'compromise', which basically means 'instead of cutting off my leg, how bout just cutting off a few toes..." If the friendly congress critters would pick something like the 'gun-free zones', run with it and stay on point, they could change the tone of the debate. Right now, they're letting the left format the debate.



On you tax break, seems to me the $1000 would just reduce your taxable income, so you’d be looking at something along the lines of getting a 3rd of that in actual tax savings. …But what do I know. I’ve heard people get ‘tax cuts’ that amount to receiving a check for greater amounts than they paid in… Be careful taking anything from Gov; it always comes with strings attached…

phil dirt
January 29, 2013, 12:32 PM
Lots of guns are stolen from gun owners who do not properly secure them. If the mother of that nut in Connecticut had stored her guns in a gun safe, she and 20 kids would be alive today. I've known gun owners who kept their guns in their underwear drawer. So, I support elimination of gun free zones and safe storage, but that's all. No other compromises.

avs11054
January 29, 2013, 12:35 PM
Obama isnt about 'handing out money,' hes about class warfare and income equality whether it is deserved or not. I dont think the antis do need to compromise. Any gun control for them is a win. And all MSM outlets do is preach the 'common sense' BS that he puts out.

Artigas
January 29, 2013, 12:35 PM
Withdrawn

Blakenzy
January 29, 2013, 12:46 PM
I'll agree to an "assault weapon" ban if assault rifles are exempted from the NFA. How about that for compromise?

JRH6856
January 29, 2013, 12:53 PM
If the govt. subsidized your gun safe, they would insist on the right to randomly inspect to insure it was being used for its subsidized purpose.

MedWheeler
January 29, 2013, 12:54 PM
You can offer them things like "safe storage" in the name of safety but you have to remember safety has nothing to do with their ultimate agenda.
It's not about guns, crime, safety, or even "the children". Gun control is about control.

phil dirt
January 29, 2013, 01:32 PM
MicroTecniqs says, "If the govt. subsidized your gun safe, they would insist on the right to randomly inspect to insure it was being used for its subsidized purpose."

Sir, you make a damn good point. I stand corrected and withdraw my previous statement.

MtnCreek
January 29, 2013, 01:32 PM
I’ll just say be careful going down the path of safe storage. What is safe in one situation may not be in another (adult couple living alone vs mother with unstable child). Let’s say there was some kind of mandate for ‘safe storage’.

Who would determine what is safe? Answer: the same people that know nothing about firearms and the safe handling of firearms.

Going down that path could lead to inspections for safe storage.

It could also be turned against us in the future. Some other nut-job shoots some folks. Lets say he pried the safe open to obtain the weapon. Your $500 safe from the big box store is no longer suitable storage. Time to go out and spend $6,000 on a real safe. Let’s say the nut job accessed the weapon by breaking into a vehicle. No more firearms left in vehicles; that would greatly limit the ability to transport firearms (unless you have a holster for your AR…).

I assume most States have laws that address firearm storage in one way or the other. If you have a troubled / violent child and provide unsupervised access to weapons, expect to be criminally charged if he/she goes out and hurts someone.

People; Stop focusing on the item (handgun, rifle, knife, scissors, ….). Focusing on that just reaffirms that as the focus of the debate.
Anti: Those assault weapons should be banned; they have no use other than to kill lots of folks.
Freedom Lover: The Founders of the nation disagree with you. Wouldn’t it been great if the school staff at the recent shooting were allowed to protect themselves and the children. Currently, that is illegal. These mass shooters know that and that’s why they target children at school, mall patrons, movie goers… The gov’s attempt to protect people has made them a target.

Simply address what the anti had to say, but don’t dwell on their argument. Just watch a politian answer a question....

Bring solutions to the table. Walking into a negation with a list of stuff you’re willing to give up is a good way to get screwed.

mrvco
January 29, 2013, 02:27 PM
The problem with demanding "compromise" is that any Anti activist considers anything short of total confiscation a compromise. Most won't say it publicly for obvious reasons, but "taking all the guns off the street" is one of their many panaceas on the road to utopia.

Regardless, there just aren't a lot of good "Gives" to balance (or counter) any of their "Takes".

National Reciprocity is about the only one I can think of that is absolutely clear cut.

I'd love to see a tax credit or a rebate for safes, but as soon as the government "buys you a safe" (and that is how they'll think of it), they will inevitably want to inspect it every year or so to make sure it still functions properly, is safely installed, isn't overloaded, doesn't contain things it shouldn't like banned mags, doesn't contain more ammunition than what is reasonable, etc.

It would also be nice if there were more public ranges, but that is more of a local or state issue than a national one.

RetiredUSNChief
January 29, 2013, 03:24 PM
OK, here's a compromise I'll accept:

How's about we shift our tactics away from lawful gun owners and start putting the smackdown on the criminals via the many laws we ALREADY have in place?

I would be willing to spend more tax dollars keeping such criminals off the streets...and perhaps support various tax-saving techniques such as stacking them like cordwood in prisons when we run out of room, eliminating such things as cable/satellite TV and internet in order to free up more funds to feed and clothe them, and a few other things I can think of.

Perhaps we could get a start on that prison over-population issue by remodeling the courtrooms. I'm thinking putting in a backstop behind the witness stand and the defense table/desk.

Zombiphobia
January 29, 2013, 03:58 PM
Yeah, find the root cause of violence and stop blaming inanimate objects for the actions of irresponsbile and mentally ill people!!

We've made enough compromises and they don't work. Now it's time to look at the real issue; irresposnibility and mental illness.

I'm all for everyone having documentation prove they've passed a psychiatric examination and passing a criminal history check to make sure they're not a violent person, but I say no to any weapon registration outside of explosives, no to any restrictions on what can be purchased or in what quanitity. No bans on types of small arms that can be manufactured by licensed manufacturers who've proven their proficiency. No bans on magazine capacity or who can buy them or where they can be owned, and no carry restrictions against resposnible and safe citizens

http://www.mrconservative.com/2013/01/4083-mass-shooting-victim-woman-gives-passionate-testimony-to-congress-supporting-2nd-amendment/

Ask her if she wants to make more compromises.

Enforce the laws already in place by actually punishing criminals. NOT GIVING THEM A LUXERY HOTEL with free cable, video games and health care. And since I know we're all thinking 'prison anal rape'.. quite a few are a bi or gay already, so what kind of punishemnt are we applying by giving them free sex in addition to the benefits they already get by staying in prison and also getting education and hiring benfits?

C'mon. PUNISH criminals, don't reward them!!

Geckgo
January 30, 2013, 03:12 PM
Hmm, not sure if I worded my point poorly or if some threads here have strayed. I wasn't speaking "down the road" and I know some of you think of that as short sighted, but nobody ever came to inspect how I spent my pell grant or my student loans. I can assure you that not 100% of them went to books and classes (even though everything involved me being able to continue my education, the rest I funded with a full time job).

I was just saying that a tax deduction or something of the short would shut some of the voices up that are knee jerking. I am also of the opinion that a LOT of "illegal" weapons don't come from ftf sales, though we all know that some will, but from theifs who find them while they are robbing a house, sometimes casing houses just for the weapons, which are pretty easy to dump for money or to arm them for future crimes. There are also a LOT of gun-owners out there, myself included, that don't have a "gun safe" for various reasons. I believe that the bottom line is that "it's not worth the cash for my situation right now." The point of such a tax deduction would be to make it more appealing for a gun owner (or even a non-gun owner that wants to protect their valuables) to lock them up when they aren't home. Yea, it's easier to just keep the one in the desk there than to tote it back to the safe when you leave for work. Okay, what about a fingerprint box secured to the desk(wall, whatever)? Tax deduction. New safe, tax deduction. If it would speed up the already declining violent crime rate, and the dems were willing to accept it as viable for that cause, perhaps it could even start a trend for us to get back some of the NFA items under the guise that, well, crime rate continues to drop, lots of people are claiming "safe" deductions, hell, let em have that supressor. If a criminal breaks in they shouldn't be deaf for the rest of their life because they chose not to die.

"Down the road" depends on how you continue the fight, not the current piece of legislation on the table right now. Look at how CC has caught on in the last two decades.

@mrvco - and you will always have those people, but you can turn the semi-antis back toward the light by convincing them that you are in it for the cause of stopping crime. Isn't that one reason we have them?

@RetiredUSNChief - everyone I know seems to be against inmates watching cable TV and having other luxuries. I for one think they need to work, but some would say that's borderline slavery. All the same, I'm all for them punching license plates and cleaning litter on the side of the road, as well as manufacturing their own clothes, cooking their own meals, growing their own gardens, and other things that might actually REFORM them instead of just HOLDING them. Totally on your side, but this is a seperate issue.

I dunno, these are my thoughts, and I'm not God, so there are going to be disagreements. I would rather my plan than what's on the table at the moment. And to be sure, my anti friends all hate the idea too. But maybe that's what we need, an idea that everyone has to give up a little instead of whittling more off of our rights. Just my two coppers.

Captain*kirk
January 31, 2013, 12:35 AM
"Hmm, not sure if I worded my point poorly or if some threads here have strayed. I wasn't speaking "down the road" and I know some of you think of that as short sighted, but nobody ever came to inspect how I spent my pell grant or my student loans. I can assure you that not 100% of them went to books and classes (even though everything involved me being able to continue my education, the rest I funded with a full time job)."

A Pell Grant and books are not guns. To the libs and anti's there is a big difference, and I agree that they would want "proof" that you were abiding by the rules (there WILL be rules!) and regulations thereof.
Much as I like your suggestions, the left has given me no reason to trust either their motive or method.

ironhead7544
January 31, 2013, 07:04 AM
These crazy people will always be able to get the weapons they need. If they dont they will just change tactics. Monsters are monsters. You cant change that. The Sandy Hook monster killed his mother and some unrelated people including small children? You really think a safe would stop him? He sees the guns are locked up and just says "Oh well, I'll just go watch cartoons instead." I dont think so.

Laws cannot protect you against this type of monster. One in NY killed 84 innocent people with a dollars worth of gasoline. The two he wanted to get escaped. He did that with no planning.

The best thing we can do is stay alert and carry when possible. There should be almost no restriction on CCW. No gun free psychotic hunting zones. We have to take responsibilty for our own protection. It is just a fact.

d-dogg
January 31, 2013, 08:05 AM
I would like a voluntary means at my disposal to perform a background check on a potential buyer.

ezkl2230
January 31, 2013, 08:07 AM
Sorry, no compromises. We've done enough of that. Compromise only reinforces the idea that we are the problem. No, it's time to force the anti's to start coming up with something other than, "let's all become defenseless and HOPE the bad guys will follow our example." We are being inundated with that here in Grand Rapids, MI, and our MAIG member mayor is leading the way.

tuj
January 31, 2013, 08:38 AM
As I understand it, the BATFE does not require gun stores to keep an inventory record. Requiring such records, along with more frequent checks by the BATFE on the inventory would perhaps help to reduce the 1% of gun stores that are breaking the law by selling to people illegally. This is one compromise area that I don't have a problem with.

We should also emphasize our existing compromises:
-we have agreed to make fully automatic weapons expensive and relatively hard to obtain.
-we have agreed for background checks on all transactions that are not FTF.
-we have agreed to ban certain weapons that have no 'militia' purpose, such as sawed-off shotguns.

Where I draw the line:
-magazine capacity limits. No way.
-"assault weapon" bans that target features in stupid ways, such as targeting pistol grips.

Where I'm still murky and thinking about things:
-background checks for everyone, including FTF, *if* they gov't would set a max price at say $10 on such a check by an FFL as to make it so that it would not be too onerous to sell one's firearms.

malo
January 31, 2013, 08:49 AM
So... it has to be an approved safe and an approved method of fixing, it would be reasonable to have an alarm system to notify if someone breaks in to your government approved safe, firearms and ammunition have to be stored in separate safes. law enforcement would be able to randomly inspect to ensure storage compliance and might reserve non approval if you live in a "high crime" area without further security measures on doors and windows....

Freedom is generally lost inch by inch.

MtnCreek
January 31, 2013, 02:13 PM
As I understand it, the BATFE does not require gun stores to keep an inventory record. Requiring such records, along with more frequent checks by the BATFE on the inventory would perhaps help to reduce the 1% of gun stores that are breaking the law by selling to people illegally. This is one compromise area that I don't have a problem with.

BATF does require gun stores to keep an inventory. Also, each firearm transferred to a non-licensed person has a 4473 form that includes the NICS number or the buyers state firearms license number (in GA). I doubt there are many (if any) dealers that sell firearms without a NICS check or state firearms license (CCP). If there are, I wouldn’t want to be them when BATF came for an inspection.

We should also emphasize our existing compromises:
-we have agreed to make fully automatic weapons expensive and relatively hard to obtain.
-we have agreed for background checks on all transactions that are not FTF.
-we have agreed to ban certain weapons that have no 'militia' purpose, such as sawed-off shotguns.

I never agreed, but I'm also one of those guys that'll say 'I wasn't at the surrender'. (Southern humor :) )

Where I'm still murky and thinking about things:
-background checks for everyone, including FTF, *if* they gov't would set a max price at say $10 on such a check by an FFL as to make it so that it would not be too onerous to sell one's firearms.

Two problems. First, I view this as firearm regristration. That’s a no-go in my book. Second, Gov telling private business (ffl) how much they can charge for a service. Sorry to say, but if everyone was given direct access to NICS, NICS would no longer work. Under current law, they would likely say pending to everything (because they would be swamped) and the pending would time out, making the firearm available for transfer. Reaction to that would result in some kind of change in the NICS rules and would probably result in months to get a proceed from NICS.

Cosmoline
January 31, 2013, 02:22 PM
Expansion of 03 FFL's to all firearms. So those of us who are frequent fliers can avoid the lines at security. That seems pretty sensible all around and it would be very easy to draft.

Coop45
January 31, 2013, 02:27 PM
Universal checks in exchange for doing away with NFA.

JRH6856
January 31, 2013, 03:43 PM
OK, here is another idea. It has been mentioned that 22 states already have a form of pre-sale background check in the form of CCW permits or licenses which are accepted in lieu of a background check.

For those states the do not have permits, and for those persons who do not have them in states that do issue permits. Why not allow voluntary background checks prior to purchase? This has been suggested as well, but do it this way:

Texas issues both drivers licenses and picture IDs. Allow anyone to go to a DPS license office and request a NICS check. If the check is clear, place a G code on the license or ID and record the fact that the license/ID is so coded. The person can then display this to any seller as proof of NICS OK.

If a person with such a coded license/ID is adjudicated ineligible for firearms ownership, he/she must surrender the coded ID in exchange for an uncoded one.

Anyone without a coded ID would still have to go through an FFL for a NICS check and recorded transfer.

MedWheeler
January 31, 2013, 09:49 PM
I would like a voluntary means at my disposal to perform a background check on a potential buyer.

I've seen many sellers here in Florida choose this option by requiring buyers to possess a carry-license.

MaterDei
January 31, 2013, 09:55 PM
Nada

FAS1
February 1, 2013, 10:07 AM
If the govt. subsidized your gun safe, they would insist on the right to randomly inspect to insure it was being used for its subsidized purpose.

Might look something like this. Notice the $14.00 fee to access your gun!

California Handgun Safe (http://youtu.be/wypFgcqHyvc)

Ole Humpback
February 2, 2013, 09:19 PM
For a good rundown of why "compromise" is bad:

http://thelawdogfiles.blogspot.com/2013/01/a-repost.html?m=1

We have given up so much, and what has the other side gave up in return?

Kybill
February 3, 2013, 06:37 PM
I favor no new laws or restictions unless we simply limit the number of rounds allowed to the secret service or other government security personnel to whatever limit is in existence in the most restictive state. So if an individual in NY is allowed 7 rounds that would allow up to 7 single shot weapons in a single protection detail for one of our elite ( or a lesser number of weapons as long as no more than 7 rounds were accessible at any given moment).

hso
February 3, 2013, 06:57 PM
With the lowest violent crime rate in this generation and still falling what exactly is the motivation for any new restrictive legislation or for any "compromise". There's no data indicating that we have a problem to solve.

The existing laws should be effectively enforced, the existing systems for firearms purchases should be effectively employed and any state's not reporting the needed information to keep people like Cho, Loughner, and Holmes from legally purchasing firearms should be forced to comply.

These nightmare events should be treated as just that, nightmares. They're too rare and too limited to warrant any change in national legislation.

68wj
February 4, 2013, 08:59 AM
Enforce existing law.

Eliminate "gun free zones" at education and worship locations. Legal to own and carry shouldn't end in the highest concentrations of loved ones.

Encourage partnerships with groups like NSSF or NRA to others such as Ad Council to promote safe ownership/use of guns. Eliminate the taboo. Here is a quick safety video by the NSSF: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zIWqrFC0d9k Now, imagine that it aired where the general public might actually see it and star someone the public might actually listen to.

Make available a system for background and stolen firearms checks for private sales. Strictly voluntary and only a yes/no response.

Make grants available for firearms training. What is the firearms and ammo FET being used for anyway?

Acknowledge that suppressors may be used as a safety device and exempt them from NFA.

kwguy
February 4, 2013, 09:44 AM
Here's a crazy idea on compromise: Enforce existing laws, and actually penalize those that break them. As far as swinging at the "good idea pinata" and coming up with laws for "safe storage" etc, we don't need the government telling us to use some common sense when it comes to securing our firearms in an appropriate manner, whatever that may be. Just like we don't need them to tell us not to drive while intoxicated. When the .gov gets into the business of legislating common sense, it gets messy, intrusive, and restrictive.

As a community, I think we can do a pretty good job of policing ourselves, amongst ourselves, without any help from the .gov. It's like asking a doctor to fix your car, or a mechanic to conduct open heart surgery, or, maybe, like asking some "lawyer politician" to come up with "good ideas for guns". Sounds crazy to me.

hso
February 4, 2013, 09:54 AM
What "common sense" tells us is that government should be trying to identify the root cause of violent crime, identify the current methods being used to address the root cause of violent crime, propose real ways to mitigate those real causes that may involve doing away with laws and programs that don't work, bolstering those that do and introducing new ones based on fact based studies that don't duplicate existing effective programs.

The data doesn't indicate and relationship with controlling firearms ownership beyond controlling access of criminals and those who are not capable of safely owning firearms. Everything else is pointless.

DoubleMag
February 4, 2013, 10:24 AM
lots of guns are stolen from gun owners who do not properly secure them. If the mother of that nut in connecticut had stored her guns in a gun safe, she and 20 kids would be alive today. I've known gun owners who kept their guns in their underwear drawer. So, i support elimination of gun free zones and safe storage, but that's all. No other compromises.
here here! There's strength in using this arguement...the 'left' is using the incident why shoudn't we? Is it not true....if it was secured in a safe they would be alive today?

and #32 Here's a crazy idea on compromise: Enforce existing laws, and actually penalize those that break them.

from my posters for Feb 8th thread...

TAX CREDIT FOR GUN SAFES!!
GOV'T/NRA SPONSORED SAFE GUN HANDLING CLASSES!!
''PASS-THE-CLASS'' GET A TAX BREAK ON FIREARMS!!
MAKES TOO MUCH SENSE EH??!!

INCREASE MASS GUN CRIME PENALTIES TO LIFE IN PRISON, OR WORSE! HARD LABOR SENTENCES FOR REPEAT OFFENDERS! WHATS THE MATTER...SCARED CRIME WILL GO DOWN??

Ole Humpback
February 5, 2013, 11:36 PM
Safe storage is relative. What I consider to be safe storage is not what someone else considers to be safe storage.

Example; three people own guns who all lock their doors when they are away and bar them when they are home. One is a single person, the next person is married, and the last person is married with children. The single person considers safe storage to be under the bed, the married person considers safe storage to be a small box in the closet, the married with children person considers safe storage to be a Walmart type lock box that keeps the kids out.

In each situation, their storage is safe for their given situation. But the thing anyone should take away from this is that their homes are locked. We all know that burglars can beat the door to our house down given enough time, so whats to say that a gun safe will fair any better? Most "safes" that the average person can afford are not safes, they are security cabinets that can be breached with little more than a hammer or Sawzall. True safes require power tools or torches to breach, but they are not impenetrable and will eventually fail. So what's the minimum standard to be met for a safe: a UL rated RSC or a UL rated TRTL-30?

However; the thing that chaffs me the most about the "but if she had locked her guns in a safe" argument is this: parents for the most part will take their children into their confidence on most any matter. Lets suppose she had stored them in a safe and the safe was locked at the time Mr Lanza killed her. And for arguments sake say that she had told Lanza the combo to the safe/where the key is several years prior to him developing mental health issues. Who's to say that the safe would have kept him out especially if he recalled the method for opening it?

RetiredUSNChief
February 6, 2013, 12:05 AM
Here're some words of wisdom from Judge Legg:

"If the Government wishes to burden a right guaranteed by the Constitution, it may do so provided that it can show a satisfactory justification and a sufficiently adapted method. The showing, however, is always the Government’s to make. A citizen may not be required to offer a “good and substantial reason” why he should be permitted to exercise his rights. The right’s existence is all the reason he needs."

Source: http://www.handgunlaw.us/documents/agopinions/MDUSDisCtRulingGoodCause.pdf


The ONLY "compromise" that should EVER be considered here is the due process by which a convicted criminal may be deprived of his legal right to own a firearm. A criminal has compromised his own rights by his own actions and should be held accountable for it.

No law-abiding citizen should have his rights compromised in any way outside this process.

If you enjoyed reading about "Compromises on gun control that we might accept. No, really, any good ideas?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!