Proposed compromises on gun laws


PDA






Armymutt
April 1, 2013, 09:59 AM
The President says that there need to be compromises in gun laws. I have proposed the following. I'm planning on sending these to my senators and reps.

1. Registration of all firearms to be used on federally owned land. If a state wishes to do the same for the land it owns, fine. In exchange, the machine gun registry is to be re-opened to allow the registration of new machine guns, along with allowing the new manufacture and importation of machine guns. Of all the weapons used in crimes, legal machine guns have the best track record. Since 1934, only one has been used.
2. Back ground checks for all firearms transfers, either through the NICS or some other system set up for the owner of the weapon to conduct the check. No requirement to maintain a bound book for transfers, but it is on the seller to prove that a check was done. In exchange, suppressors are removed from being NFA items. These are safety devices similar to the muffler on a car. They do not eliminate the report of a firearm, despite Hollywood depiction to the contrary. This will reduce noise pollution at both indoor and outdoor ranges, making shooting sports even safer.
3. Mandatory firearm safety education for anyone under the age of 18 on the date of passage. This will be conducted every year in every public school, with the level of education appropriate for the age group. Initially it would start with the don't touch idea, and progress all the way to maintenance and shooting fundamentals. This will ensure that all students know how to safely handle firearms, even if they have no interest in them. Since most of the firearm fatalities are due to accidents, education is the way to go.

If you enjoyed reading about "Proposed compromises on gun laws" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
cfullgraf
April 1, 2013, 10:04 AM
Reasonable proposal but there are some gun enthusiasts that will say gun enthusiasts have already compromised.

When it comes to the President, he says, "Let's compromise, and do it my way."

AlexanderA
April 1, 2013, 10:06 AM
The antigunners aren't interested in anything like this. It will be rejected out of hand by them, since it's transparently pro-gun. On the other hand, the pro-gun side will still reflexively yell "No compromise!"

Vartarg
April 1, 2013, 10:07 AM
Compromise and capitulation aren't the answer.....:fire:

NO registration, period....and no "mandatory education" on gun safety.....either we're for liberty, or we're not.

This perhaps well intended "proposed compromise" is a non starter IMHO.

George

sota
April 1, 2013, 10:11 AM
NICS should be free.
The call should have a unique ID# announced to the caller (there's your verification).
If the call cannot be completed (busy, overload, NICS down) the ID must be considered cleared. 3 attempts should be made but not requiring them to take more than 30 minutes to complete.
Better yet why isn't NICS an online web service? If I can file my state sales taxes every month why can't NICS be an web form? have it email confirmations to both parties. And of course there should be "an app for that" as well.

In this day and age call logs are easy to obtain from any carrier, and I can't imagine any modern cell phone not having a log dump capability. Even my landline (which granted is VoIP (OOMA)) has a full call history log going back several years that I can access.

Arkansas Paul
April 1, 2013, 10:13 AM
So you're willing to give up some rights in exchange for others?
What exactly would that accomplish? You're still letting them get their foot in the door for registration by requiring universal background checks. And #1 makes no sense whatsoever. So they won't be registered unless you take them onto Federally owned land? Then there is a registration process? How exactly will that work?

Sorry folks, if you're willing to give an inch, you're part of the problem. There should be ABSOLUTELY NO COMPROMISE when it comes to constitutional rights. If you want to compromise about the budget, that's fine. The parties have differing opinions on that. But you don't compromise the Bill of Rights.

Why don't we compromise on the 1st Amendment as well? Let's say, you can have freedom of speech, except on Federally owned land. But we can say what we want to on our own property.
Doesn't make a hell of a lot of sense does it?

Carl N. Brown
April 1, 2013, 10:16 AM
Registration of all firearms to be used on federally owned land. If a state wishes to do the same for the land it owns, fine.

The rationale being what? I am aware I can travel on a public highway in Virginia (and probably other states, but it became an issue with guns in Virginia) and be on federally owned land or state owned land (parks or designated forest) with no clear sign that that is the case. Sounds like a trap for the unwary innocent to me.

Arbo
April 1, 2013, 10:36 AM
No more compromise. There are plenty enough laws and restrictions in place, that they refuse to enforce them is their fault. No new laws, no new restrictions.

JustinJ
April 1, 2013, 10:52 AM
Stop for a moment and think how these "compromises" appear to a non-gun enthusiast. It would be like if there were a school bus hit by a train and car enthusiasts said they would be willing to go for mandatory stops at RR crossings if we don't have to use blinkers and wear seat belts any more.

By compromise, the president is talking about us giving into some restrictions to reduce gun violence as opposed to much more restrictive ones. What do your steps do to reduce mass shootings or general gun violence? Your proposal makes it appear that only one side in this debate is interested in such.

I'm not advocating new restrictions but these fantasies about trading away for machine guns or silencers are not going to happen.

By the way, how exactly is a mandatory check of all sales going to be enforceable without a national gun registry? There are millions upon millions of guns in existence today. All one has to say is they sold it before the new law took effect.

Neo-Luddite
April 1, 2013, 11:07 AM
No ~ no compromise. We'll get the MG registry open on our own through legislation or the SCOTUS sometime. And we will NEVER be fooled and hoodwinked in the wee hours as happened with this in 1986.

And as for the last bit about mandatory training - no dice. It opens a whole un-intended set of scenarios. Training is from elder to child in a family/family-like dynamic (family/scouts/ect.).

Trung Si
April 1, 2013, 11:14 AM
When it comes to the President, he says, "Let's compromise, and do it my way
That's exactly what he is saying!:rolleyes:
There are about 20k Firearms Laws already in effect, that's enough No Compremise, No more New Laws.:cuss:

bigfatdave
April 1, 2013, 11:27 AM
required readong on this subject:
http://thelawdogfiles.blogspot.com/2013/01/a-repost.html

We've "compromised" enough. No more.

jimmyraythomason
April 1, 2013, 11:46 AM
No Compromise, No more New Laws. That pretty well says it for me too!

MErl
April 1, 2013, 11:51 AM
not sure if this post is serious or related to the date.

Torian
April 1, 2013, 12:05 PM
1 has no chance, because it will facilitate nothing aside from eventual gun confiscation schemes. We've already seen murmurings of this from liberal politicians in New York and California. As much as democrats try to deny it, there are those within their party that would jump at the opportunity to conduct nationwide gun confiscation if they were able to pull it off. You can sit back and assume the Constitution will protect you...but it hasn't done much to stop the deluge of anti-gun laws at the state level.

2. As long as it is properly implemented (not targeting guns that are passed down, gifts etc), I would consider it. The problem is, there is no gun show loop hole, and the vast majority of firearms are already undergoing background checks. This measure seems like nothing more than political theater.

3. I'm a huge proponent of "proper" firearms training for our young people, however I have concerns that liberals would never allow instruction other than "don't touch, and tell the police / parents / teachers / etc if you see a firearm". If we are going to train young people what NOT to do with firearms, we should also give them the opportunity to properly handle and shoot firearms. I fear many within our schools would just use this opportunity to brainwash children into hating guns, and repel any effort to teach them otherwise.

r1derbike
April 1, 2013, 12:24 PM
NO! No new laws (they can't/won't enforce ones already on the books). They care not to reduce the chaos/mayhem on the streets of metro areas.

They want us to register all our guns, then forcibly take them away at some undetermined time in the future, leaving us to the will of crazed, armed murderers.

A disarmed society is their endgame.

If there's one glaring, unbelievable fact this administrations' policy has shown, it is they are not interested in reducing mass murder in this country, especially in metro areas. Only punitive laws to punish law-abiding citizens, and seize their weapons in the future.

They even want to remove our capacity of self-defense in multiple armed criminals' home invasions; limiting standard capacity magazines.

No compromise, no new laws, no BS. I've had it with this administration.

danoam
April 1, 2013, 12:24 PM
Not one inch.

Sent from my Droid X2 using Tapatalk 2 when I should probably be doing something else.

FitGunner
April 1, 2013, 12:33 PM
N-O. No. Enforce the existing laws.

medalguy
April 1, 2013, 12:36 PM
"....shall not be infringed...." about covers it for me.

guitarguy314
April 1, 2013, 12:53 PM
No Registration. No Mandatory education. No Universal Background checks.

Stop playing into their hands.

We need to wake up and take our rights back, not concede more of them to the so called "greater good".

Every gun law on the books should be stricken from post haste. The fact is that every waiting period, liscence requirement, background check and ban is an infringement.

Gun laws don't stop criminals with guns. Good guys with guns do.

TenDriver
April 1, 2013, 01:15 PM
I like the idea of mandatory education as long as it includes hands on instruction and time at a shooting range. While we're at it, let's add some additional "basic training", physical fitness training, uniforms, code of conduct and rank to it.

Torian
April 1, 2013, 01:17 PM
Great idea, sounds like some JROTC programs I know. Unfortunately, some of the more delicate creatures in our society might run from such a concept :)

Armymutt
April 1, 2013, 01:33 PM
Some of you didn't read it clearly enough or you don't understand the current reality. I said "used", not transported. If you want to hunt on federally owned land such as a military installation, you are required to register the weapon with the MPs. How many of you go shooting on federal lands? I would take this minor (and already required) inconvenience over having a closed registry and import restrictions any day. Paying $15K for an MP5 puts it beyond all but the most wealthy.
Given my general mistrust of pretty much everyone, and my rather compulsive desire to keep myself out of any sort of legal issue that might result in someone taking my guns, if I were to sell a gun, you can bet there will be a background check involved. This method makes the government establish a non-FFL usable system, and would probably allow cross-border FTF transfers without an FFL. Keeping suppressors in the NFA is just stupid. Of course it's political theater - it's using Josh Sugarman's methods against him.
If the education content is dictated by Congress, the schools have no choice. You can say "no mandatory education", but that leaves an avenue of attack from the left, claiming that guns are too dangerous to be left to untrained people. By instituting Conservation Clubs in schools, in the manner of the 1940s, students will have the opportunities to learn sportsmanship, safe firearm handling, maintenance, etc. When opposed, we can then say, "Look at the left, they oppose educating people and making firearm ownership safer. What is their real agenda?" Hard for them to say that they aren't after guns when you give them common sense plans.

NavyLCDR
April 1, 2013, 01:42 PM
3. Mandatory firearm safety education for anyone under the age of 18 on the date of passage. This will be conducted every year in every public school, with the level of education appropriate for the age group. Initially it would start with the don't touch idea, and progress all the way to maintenance and shooting fundamentals. This will ensure that all students know how to safely handle firearms, even if they have no interest in them. Since most of the firearm fatalities are due to accidents, education is the way to go.

I have enough issues with what the government indoctrinates my daughter with now, I certainly don't need them indoctrinating her in regards to firearms.

snake_plisskin
April 1, 2013, 01:51 PM
I really dont understand the first "compromise". It sounds like you want to take a current inconvenience for people shooting on military bases and apply it to anyone that shoots on public lands. Arent national parks/forrests considered federal land?

Also how would this increase safety for anyone?

Arkansas Paul
April 1, 2013, 01:56 PM
Some of you didn't read it clearly enough or you don't understand the current reality.

On the contrary, I think we all read it perfectly clearly. You're willing to exchange some freedoms for others. We are not willing to do so.

Given my general mistrust of pretty much everyone, and my rather compulsive desire to keep myself out of any sort of legal issue that might result in someone taking my guns, if I were to sell a gun, you can bet there will be a background check involved.

Which would make 9/10 of the people you're trying to sell to tell you to just forget it. Which may be fine with you. If it is, that's certainly your right. Me, if I want to go through all the BS red tape, I'll just go to a gun store in the first place.

You can say "no mandatory education", but that leaves an avenue of attack from the left

That's better than folding and conceding things to them voluntarily as you are suggesting we do.

By instituting Conservation Clubs in schools, in the manner of the 1940s, students will have the opportunities to learn sportsmanship, safe firearm handling, maintenance, etc.

I actually think this is an excellent idea, but I don't believe it should be mandatory. My daughter's school has shooting sports and I think it's great, and will encourage her to participate. They have a trap team, and will have an archery team soon.

ngnrd
April 1, 2013, 02:27 PM
How many of you go shooting on federal lands?
I do. And, I would imagine that there are many folks that do, especially in the Western US and Alaska.

What I find disturbing is your "the infringement I'm proposing doesn't directly effect me, so it's OK" attitude.

http://global.nationalreview.com/dest/2010/10/05/ederally_owned_land_heritage_foundation_map.jpg

Newcatwalt
April 1, 2013, 02:40 PM
No more compromises. :cuss:

TCB in TN
April 1, 2013, 02:52 PM
I understand your point, just completely disagree.

If Government is the answer, you probably asked the wrong question....

Armymutt
April 1, 2013, 02:57 PM
Are they federally owned or managed? Who is controlling access to them? You can keep yelling no compromise, but that didn't work out for us in '34, '68, '86, or '94. These compromises restore more freedom than they give up, unless you have a reason for not wanting to make sure you aren't committing a crime by selling to a ineligible person. How many of you have children in schools getting firearm instruction from a police instructor or NRA instructor?

Eventually, the left is going to get what they want. You're fooling yourself if you think politicians are going to stop it. The best case is to regain what's been lost while they focus on their prize.

hso
April 1, 2013, 03:11 PM
You may not realize it but you're throwing a lot of people under the bus in exchange for just a few.

A lot, and I mean A LOT, of people hunt on Fed propery like national forrests and range land, but only a very few are interested in machine guns. Where does infringing on the rights of the many for the benefit of the few make any sense. Instead you should be working to remove machineguns from the NFA since you've already said that they're simply not a threat to public safety. If they're not used in crime then why make deals that penalize so many people?

Even greater numbers of citizens would be affected by your universal background check scheme, but still only a fraction of them would be interested in purchasing suppressors. Again, why penalize the many for the benefit of the few. Instead you should be working to remove suppressors from NFA so that anyone that wants to protect their hearing would be able to purchase one.

Starting from this is not a sound negotiating approach.

"These compromises restore more freedom than they give up"

No, you exchange the freedoms of millions for a few scores of thousands and that is a net loss.

ngnrd
April 1, 2013, 03:34 PM
Are they federally owned or managed?

Did you not read the title on the graphic I posted? It clearly says FEDERALLY OWNED.


Eventually, the left is going to get what they want.
If this were true, then even your "compromises" are mute. Why not just turn in all the guns now and get it over with?

snake_plisskin
April 1, 2013, 03:50 PM
If the left is eventually going to win and get their way eventually. Why not just save yourself some hassle in the future and sell all your guns now?

This defeatist attitude is ridiculous.

22-rimfire
April 1, 2013, 03:53 PM
The President says that there need to be compromises in gun laws. I have proposed the following. I'm planning on sending these to my senators and reps.

1. Registration of all firearms to be used on federally owned land. If a state wishes to do the same for the land it owns, fine. In exchange, the machine gun registry is to be re-opened to allow the registration of new machine guns, along with allowing the new manufacture and importation of machine guns. Of all the weapons used in crimes, legal machine guns have the best track record. Since 1934, only one has been used.
2. Back ground checks for all firearms transfers, either through the NICS or some other system set up for the owner of the weapon to conduct the check. No requirement to maintain a bound book for transfers, but it is on the seller to prove that a check was done. In exchange, suppressors are removed from being NFA items. These are safety devices similar to the muffler on a car. They do not eliminate the report of a firearm, despite Hollywood depiction to the contrary. This will reduce noise pollution at both indoor and outdoor ranges, making shooting sports even safer.
3. Mandatory firearm safety education for anyone under the age of 18 on the date of passage. This will be conducted every year in every public school, with the level of education appropriate for the age group. Initially it would start with the don't touch idea, and progress all the way to maintenance and shooting fundamentals. This will ensure that all students know how to safely handle firearms, even if they have no interest in them. Since most of the firearm fatalities are due to accidents, education is the way to go.
Your points... No, No, and No

Texan Scott
April 1, 2013, 04:37 PM
No requirement to maintain a bound book for transfers, but it is on the seller to prove that a check was done.

So your proposition is that the ACCUSED bear the burden of proof in a federal firearms prosecution? Your concessions re: federal and state registration are pretty clear violations of the 2nd and 14th amendments, but now you're willing to throw DUE PROCESS under the bus?

This sort of 'reasonable compromise' will have y'all living in a 49-state gulag.

NO MORE COMPROMISE.

Domina
April 1, 2013, 04:38 PM
If registration had not already been used to enact generational confiscation of new machineguns, there might be something to talk about. There is no reason to believe further registration will not be used for future rounds of confiscation, either direct or via "grandfather" provisions.

Let's talk after the repeal of 922o and 922q:

OldTex
April 1, 2013, 04:38 PM
I saw that astronaut husband on Fox News Sunday. He makes a real good pitch for fixing NICS and extending it to all private sales. BUT he completely discounts the danger that a national registry will later be used for confiscation, like that is some kind of paranoid delusion we have.

All he has to do is listen to what the Dem leaders are saying right now - "This is just the beginning", 'There is no reason those 'Guns of War' should be on our streets", etc. It's not paranoia when they are openly calling for it.

JRH6856
April 1, 2013, 04:43 PM
The President says that there need to be compromises in gun laws. I have proposed the following terms of surrender. I'm planning on sending these to my senators and reps.

There. Corrected it for you. :banghead:

Ankeny
April 1, 2013, 04:59 PM
not sure if this post is serious or related to the date. Gotta be a joke. I taught in a public school for over 30 years and (to me) the idea of federally mandated curriculum across the board in firearms safety is absurd. Schools already have enough to do that isn't getting done.

As far as registration if the firearm is used on federally owned land (as a NFA concession), I live in Wyoming where the vast majority of hunting is done on federal lands. For that matter, the only public shooting range in the county is owned by the BLM (the county is over 5.9 million acres with over 3 million of those acres belonging to Uncle Sam). There are other counties with larger percentages of federal land. I guess you might as well just call for federal gun registration in the west where the local and state governments are already gun friendly. :banghead:

Old Fuff
April 1, 2013, 05:00 PM
Eventually, the left is going to get what they want. You're fooling yourself if you think politicians are going to stop it. The best case is to regain what's been lost while they focus on their prize.

At the moment so far as events in Washington DC are concerned, even the urban-based media is saying that the only proposal that might pass in the Senate is a modified universal background check bill, and that is doubtful.

In the House of Representatives (controled by Republicans) the word is that even any kind of UBC is in trouble, partly because all of the members are up for election in 2014, and neither side wants to get a large body of voters upset - but for different reasons.

Politicians are most concerned about getting re-elected (or elected, as the case might be). Gun control is a hot-button issue, and their incoming mail has made it clear that touching this issue could cause some members a lot of trouble.

I have personally been in this battle since before 1968, and frankly we have never been stronger. On the question of background checks the other side has made no move what-so-ever on moving toward a compromise. I see no reason we should give up anything in exchange for nothing.

Oh, and why does anyone think that either side in Washington is willing to modify or repeal the 1934 NFA? That idea has not been put forward by either side, and it's highly unlikely that it will be.

Godsgunman
April 1, 2013, 05:15 PM
How about a Big Fat NO!!! To everything you just said. Compromise is for the weak and beaten.

JustinJ
April 1, 2013, 06:16 PM
Some of you didn't read it clearly enough or you don't understand the current reality. I said "used", not transported. If you want to hunt on federally owned land such as a military installation, you are required to register the weapon with the MPs. How many of you go shooting on federal lands? I would take this minor (and already required) inconvenience over having a closed registry and import restrictions any day.

Do you seriously believe they would open the machine gun registration to get a log of hunters on federal land? Nobody, including gun control advocates, believe this is going to do anything towards reducing mass shootings or gun violence. What is the point to this "compromise"? I know not all convicted felons are the brightest bulbs in the pack but i believe most are probably clever enough to not voluntarily go to a place where they have to register their illegally owned guns.

phil dirt
April 1, 2013, 09:05 PM
No compromise

kwguy
April 1, 2013, 10:32 PM
I'll just us a medical disease analogy. Compromising is like trading one type of cancer for another (quid pro quo politics, with no net gain). Why not just cure the whole disease? (Shall not be infringed).

It's not complicated, and it's not rocket science, so being an ex-astronaut means nothing at all anyway...

beatledog7
April 1, 2013, 11:16 PM
No compromise.

Our best COA is to force the federal government to read and heed the darn document, the one that says "shall not be infringed," and remind them that it's the one they all swore to support and defend.

Zak Smith
April 2, 2013, 02:44 AM
Hahaha, no.

Trunk Monkey
April 2, 2013, 08:37 AM
Absolutely not

Robert
April 2, 2013, 08:38 AM
I see no reason to leave this open.

If you enjoyed reading about "Proposed compromises on gun laws" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!