compromises in gun laws

Status
Not open for further replies.
T

tt600

Member
Joined
Jan 15, 2010
Messages
24
We are all familiar with the 1986 compromise the NRA made in regards to full autos.

What are some other likely compromises that people think are either likely or desireable?

Examples: 50 state carry permits for a gunshow private sale ban.
Allowing Chinese ammo and guns in return for card check.

It seems the Dems are becoming more open to bipartisanship so I wonder what firearm bills might be in the pipeline. If the Dems are smart they might attach less restrictive firearms laws to more restrictive health care laws.
 
I suspect how the federal government treats the state's (FFA) Firearms Freedom Act (s) could be on the table.
 
Last edited:
[QUOTEWhat are some other likely compromises that people think are either likely or desireable?

][/QUOTE]

You honor my Second Amendment and I'll honor the rest of yours.
 
There are more than enough people "on our side" that would compromise away the rights of you and I, just so they could feel better.

No compromises.
No permits.
No requirements.
No exceptions.
 
I think the Dems have finally realized they have to give a little to pass their socialist pet projects like higher taxes and cap and trade. I could easily see them giving on the gun laws and tort reform and maybe even free trade. Letting states opt out of the NFA might be a little optimistic though.
 
On the 1986 Hughes Amendment: between 1934 and 1986 over 128,000 machineguns were registered to civilian owners, with practically no criminal use of legally registered machineguns, and one homicide by a police officer with a legally registered machinegun. So agreeing to ban future legal registrations was not a good compromise. It does emphasize that given a reasonably effective regulatory control, the antis will always jump for a ban or prohibition. Given that Bonnie and Clyde stole BARs from National Guard armories, John Dillinger stole Tommy Guns from Illinois police stations, and Ma Barker's sons acquired stolen Army weapons from fences, the 1934 National Firearms Act was pointless in controlling criminals and the 1986 compromise even more pointless.

On gunshow private sales, before the aforementioned 1986 "compromise" gun shows were private collectors and private sales/buys only. It was the 1986 FOPA that allowed FFL licensed gun dealers to set up at gunshows. Now we should push the private collectors and private sellers/buyers out of the gun shows and leave gunshows to FFL licensed gun dealers only? ATF's own studies show that gun show sales account for less than 2% of crime guns even though gun shows are about 10% of the gun market. And where will private sellers/buyers go? Back to the classified ads in the newspapers, swap meets, flea markets, the neighborhood bar, the parking lot at work? The NIJ felon survey showed that informal sales between strangers, family, acquaintance or neighbors were a significant source of crime guns. Prof. Marvin Wolfgang studied 588 homicides over a four-year period; he noted that "street sales" were a significant source of murder weapons. A compromise that moves private sales from the gunshow venue back to the streets is actually more likely to put guns in criminal hands.

The only good I saw out of the 1986 FOPA was the elimination of that useless ammunition logbook and allowing rural convenience stores and gas stations to sell ammo. Why compromise to accept bad gun law changes to get good gun laws, when the goal ought to be uncomprisingly good gun laws in the first place?
 
A big problem with the question is that so much that shooters want to get rid of is at the state level, and a federal compromise is not going to have any effect.

But to answer the question with a wild-ass guess, the most talked about change has to do with the "gun show loophole." (Stop sputtering everyone!) Whatever that means, I think that the change the anti's would like would be to make it more difficult for a collector to sell guns without an NICS check.

But what would they give up to get it? I don't think there is too much on the federal level that could be in play on the pure gun control side. They might be willing to sacrifice some of the more idiotic regulation on imports (which clearly does nothing to reduce the number of assault weapons and pistols on the streets), but I'm not sure they think that clearly.

They might also try to write a law that would pressure Virginia to adopt regulations more similar to other east coast states.
 
But what would they give up to get it?
Click to expand...
They won't give up anything to get it.

They use the old Soviet concept of compromise. At an international meeting, the Soviets proposed, since they were too poor to bring their wives, that they be allowed to sleep with the Western diplomats' wives.

After the uproar, they offered a "compromise" -- "give us half your wives to sleep with."
 
I think some of the posters are looking at it the wrong way. I see a likely compromise as a the republicans giving on a non-gun issue like taxes or labor law in exchange for the dems giving on the gun issue. We saw this earlier when Sen. Ensign tried to go for the 50 state carry issue as a rider to another bill. I don't think Obama cares one way or the other on guns. If he has to give that up for something else so be it.

How many here would be willing to pay higher taxes for the right to carry in all 50 states with your local permit?
 
An anti-gun law maker would not be interested in a compromise. Here's how it works. An anti-gun lawmaker gets an egregious bill going through Congress and almost ready to become law. Then, a pro-gun lawmaker comes in after the fact and manages to make a few changes to the law that's going to pass anyway. The positive changes are insignificant relative to the gun rights that the bill is slated to take away.
 
Compromise what? There are no gun laws in the federal pipeline. After the loss of Teddy's seat the Dems are more afraid of that sort of thing than ever. Other than the usual suspects proposing bills that never go anywhere, Congress will take no action on gun laws right now. The laws you're citing are from generations ago.
 
Panels of majority gut-level pro-gun control academics looked at the gun laws for CDC in 2003 and NAS in 2004 and concluded there was no research supporting a measurable reduction in crime from any of the gun control measures of the past decades, a conclusion reached by James Wright and Peter Rossi in a DOJ study conducted 1977-1981 (started in the Carter Admin BTW) and published as Weapons, Crime and Violence in America by the US govt and as Under the Gun Aldine, 1983.

Kinda hard to ignore: gun control may end up as dead an issue as prohibition of alcohol or banning "Lady Chatterley's Lover".

Kinda like offering to let them burn "Lolita" if they leave "Lady Chatterley" in print. No need.
 
Last edited:
We were two votes shy of passing nationwide reciprocity in one house WITHOUT any compromise.

You want compromise? How's this? This year, I will only demand that HALF of the useless gun laws on the books be tossed out. NEXT YEAR, we can look at the OTHER half.

I'm DONE compromising.
 
To me, bipartisanship = one party folding their hand so that they can have their picture taken with the winner.

I don't see how that is a compromise; just a surrender.
 
I fail to see why you'd even consider compromising to begin with. For example, suppose I was the chairman of a organization known as the Happygeek Campaign to Prevent Computer Crime, formerly known as Laptop Control Inc., and let's suppose I was all over the media blaming computers themselves for hacking, cracking, software/music/movie piracy, identity theft, credit card fraud, spam, etc. I'd say that

we need to end the computer show loophole
no background check, no computer, no excuses
we need to ban assault computers
there's no reason for a civilian to own a duel core processor
the only reason a civilian would have for owning a 2 TB hard drive is for piracy, we should ban those too

and other dumb stuff like that. Would you compromise your freedoms with this hypothetical group? Computers aren't even in the Constitution, after all.

Another example, let's say there was a group saying things like "we support the 1st Amendment, but we don't think you should have freedom of speech on Internet forums". "We need to limit people to posting one youtube video a month that has a political message". "You should need a permit to open a blog", and so on. Would you compromise with them? After all, the Internet didn't exist back in the 1780s, maybe the Founding Fathers meant that you only had freedom of speech in newspapers and speeches. Or maybe the 1st Amendment only applies to the media, just as the 2nd supposedly only applies to the militia.
 
I don't think Obama cares one way or the other on guns.
Click to expand...
Which is exactly why he has voted FOR increased gun control at every availble chance while in IL? Obama's voting history is no secret, and if you sincerely believe he has "nothing against guns" I strongly suggest reviewing his votes on issues realted to the matter. If he suddenly "doesn't care" its a new development that has arisen since he reached the White House. He knows gun control doesn't have popular support, and that is precisely why he's been fairly quiet on the issue. He wants us to forget his voting record on guns by 2012, because if he's elected in that election, his popularity with the American people will become a non--issue. He would be free to pursue his real agenda, without any concern of re-election. Before assuming the threat has passed, I sincerely suggest reading up on President's previous votes in regards to gun control. His votes spoke to me in a louder voice than his mouth ever has......
 
"the 1986 compromise the NRA made"

You talk as if the NRA was allowed to vote for the bill in Congress. They didn't have any votes. Congress did not even have to ask the NRA's opinion on anything. At all. Ever. IOW, it could have been a lot worse than it was if Congress hadn't had somebody pushing back at them.

Or maybe you think the NRA should have vetoed the bill. Only the president has that power.

John
 
There were some very worthwhile gains made in the Firearm Owners Protection Act. For instance:

1) We no longer have to fill out paperwork and generate permanent records of the sale of handgun ammunition.

2) We can actually drive through states like New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts and Illinois (enroute to somewhere worth going) with our firearms in the car without becoming felons.

3) ATF compliance inspections are limited to one per year to limit harassment of FFLs.

4) It codified a preemptive ban on any federal registry of non-NFA firearms.

5) The ban on interstate sales of long guns (from an FFL) was lifted.

The NRA lobbied hard for passage, and the Hughes Amendment was offered up at the last minute, late at night, in an attempt to kill the legislation.

The NRA could have withdrawn its support of the legislation and let it (or even urged it to) die and have the reforms reintroduced later, but accepted the ban on new machine guns as a trade-off for some very worthwhile improvements in gun laws when the antis were near the peak of their influence.

Part of me wishes they had let it die only to come back later without the Hughes Amendment, but for the majority of gun owners life post-FOPA is significantly better.

Still, if this is the blueprint for compromise, I think I'll pass from now on. Assuming McDonald v. Chicago is decided in the plaintiff's favor, we need to press hard on lifting unreasonable restrictions without giving anything up along the way.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

M
  • Locked
Pelosi Wants A Compromise On Another Assault Weapon Ban
Replies
10
Views
635
rbernie
rbernie
C
  • Locked
Pelosi Pledges Compromise on Assault Weapons Ban
2 3 4 5
Replies
100
Views
6K
HeavenlySword
H
W
  • Locked
"Find Compromise in Gun Debate"
2 3
Replies
57
Views
3K
txgolfer45
T
Neo-Luddite
  • Locked
More on Chicago--and a 'suggestion' for 'compromise'
Replies
13
Views
799
Bix
B
Craig_AR
  • Locked
National CC Reciprocity Will Not Solve the Problems
2 3
Replies
69
Views
3K
GEM
G
Back
Top