Creating a contingency plan to influence the legal language of a UBC

[Sam1911]

So the FOPA was mostly good but saying so should get me ridicule. Mostly good, is usually the best outcome you can expect. It is ridiculous to think we can get everything we want without giving anything. That isn't how politics works.

No, and I've argued the same thing myself: That FOPA was "mostly good." That doesn't mean it is a model of success.

It carries one of the most hated and onerous violations of the spirit of the 2nd Amendment ever placed on the free citizens of the USA.

If you hold that up as a decent compromise, you will deserve the ridicule you win.


And, if you know anything about how the Hughes Amendment happened, you wouldn't hold FOPA up as a good example of anything. It was a travesty and a miscarriage.

You don't want restrictions lifted on suppressors, barrel lengths, overall lengths, etc? You don't want nationwide reciprocity for concealed carry? You don't want any changes to laws dealing with firearms? If you do want to change something you need to get a bill passed into law.

Oh sure. Of course. I want gun laws repealed. Passing new gun control laws in order to repeal others would be a very suspect deal.

But NOBODY is offering that deal. NOBODY is offering a tit-for-tat trade like you're suggesting so that a false premise.

 

[JSH1]

I think there is too much Govt in our lives and the Govt has repeatedly demonstrated that they only try to prosecute such a minority of the BC/4473 form violations that its laughable in a not so funny way.

The purpose of the 4473 form and background check is to prevent the sale. If a prohibited person is prevented from buying a gun the background check has worked.

I do recognize that being able to trace a crime gun is a good thing but, again, I haven't seen a proposal yet that isn't ripe for abuse or has already been abused to screw over the law abiding guy.

In the last year I have purchased 10 guns. All have been purchased new or out of state so a transfer through a FFL was required. Oregon requires the make, model and Serial Number along with my fingerprints. I'm a law abiding guy. How have I been abused or screwed?

 

[Sam1911]

The problem with planning strategies that are Victory or Death is the possibility of death. Passage of a UBC does not have to result in a mortal wound.

You say that as though the "death" we're risking is the end of RKBA or something. The "death" we're risking is simply passage of UBC. So that's "all the marbles." If we lose, we get UBC, probably with registration. If we win, we don't. Nobody is saying "compromise and let them have a UBC because if we lose they'll repeal the 2nd Amendment!"

There is precious little practical difference from your view of a "compromise win" and your view of a "loss."

Thats great Sam! I am very happy we have that team of players fighting the good fight. Think of what I am proposing as setting up a Red Team.

I don't see that as a valid exercise.

If you aren't fighting to put in the "Red Team" to play now, WHEN do you feel we will put them on the field? There may be backroom strategies for mitigating failure, but how are you expecting this strategizing to ever be employed? Without sitting down and saying, "we're willing to compromise ..." and thus giving up that next half-of-a-half-of-a-half-of-a-half-of-a-cake we're still holding?

This thread is really all about a simple topic: suggestions. It is not about concealing a devious plan. Perhaps after you and others help me get enough good suggestions we can all work together on a "devious plan".

I don't have any good suggestions. No universal background checks are acceptable, so if they FORCE that on us well, I guess we should beg them for no registrations to go along with it. If they're feeling generous in victory, I suppose.

 

[JSH1]

Oh sure. Of course. I want gun laws repealed. Passing new gun control laws in order to repeal others would be a very suspect deal.

But NOBODY is offering that deal. NOBODY is offering a tit-for-tat trade like you're suggesting so that a false premise.

Just because the sides sit down doesn't mean a deal will get done. Maybe there is room for agreement, maybe not. Talking doesn't hurt anyone. We will never know if we never ask the question.

Running someone of of town for sitting down an talking to someone from the other side is beyond stupid but it seems to be the norm in politics today.

 

[Nom de Forum]

Nom,
We have had our differences so I'm probably included, at least in part, in the reference above. But I think you realize I'm open minded and civil enough to realize that I don't know everything and I'm willing to learn.... but will also need a pretty compelling argument to change my beliefs.

I agree with you are open minded and deserve a compelling argument.

Having said that....

I don't believe in UBC in any of the proposals Im familiar with. Maybe there is one... but I haven't seen it yet.

Neither do I.

I think there is too much Govt in our lives and the Govt has repeatedly demonstrated that they only try to prosecute such a minority of the BC/4473 form violations that its laughable in a not so funny way.

I also believe, as others have said, that the anti 2A politicians don't negotiate in good faith.

I agree that the anti 2A politicians don't negotiate in good faith. I believe in hard and fast written legal language not promises of intent.

I also don't believe that you can legislate morality. We, collectively, are ultimately our own police.

I do believe.. or hope for... that there was a way for sellers is Private Party Transfers (PPT) to be able to do a BC before they sell. It should be a purely Go/No Go answer and a S/N isn't needed.

I agree about the limits of legislation. That type of BC procedure is far more preferable than most.

I do recognize that being able to trace a crime gun is a good thing but, again, I haven't seen a proposal yet that isn't ripe for abuse or has already been abused to screw over the law abiding guy.

I am not even sure if the current gun tracing system is really that significant in criminal apprehension.

The idea for having a contingency plan is part of the planing to limit a BC from abusing the law abiding.

My beef in these recent threads is that we continue to allow ourselves to be portrayed as wanting to hide in the shadows doing dubious things.

Some of us are attempting to prevent that perception by having the patience to continue participating in these threads.

And that the argument of ' You'll never stop 100% of them so all BC check should go away.' just isn't working. It isn't compelling to the average voter.

I agree. Apparently some other THR members also agree.

Having said all that....... I'm not readily in favor of negotiating with the Anti's.

I not either. I am in favor of creating tactics we can supply to our legislators to ensure strategic victory.

I'm in favor of getting more people on or side through raising awareness and educating the fence sitters and hopefully getting more of the mildly anti voters on our side. The rabid anti's are probably a lost cause other than the ones that may/will follow the Pro 2A wave that we need to create.

Agreed.

IMO, this should be a an "Activism Discussion and Planning " thread to do what I said above, not a Negotiating thread.

Well it could be but I think it premature. This thread is about getting suggestions for use in a contingency plan, not any specific acts of activism. I also fear that because of that this thread will rapidly disappear from view if moved from General Discussion.

But I'll participate in a civil discussion.... and hopefully convince others that I'm right.

Thank you for the civility and good luck.

 

[danez71]

The purpose of the 4473 form and background check is to prevent the sale. If a prohibited person is prevented from buying a gun the background check has worked.

In your example, it only half worked. Its the other half that I'm referring to - Prosecution. If the bad guy lies on the form he should be prosecuted. At only 60+ prosecutions that Bart referenced, its painfully clear that's not happening.

That same guy can try to buy a gun 100 times while lying.... he probably wont be prosecuted per the statistics.

It only takes one time for the 3 days to pass with no BC reply and he'll get his gun. Its an exaggerated example to make the point.

In the last year I have purchased 10 guns. All have been purchased new or out of state so a transfer through a FFL was required. Oregon requires the make, model and Serial Number along with my fingerprints. I'm a law abiding guy. How have I been abused or screwed?

You apparently haven't but 100's or 1000's have. They can tell within minutes if Ive filed my taxes. They don't even need 3 days in reality.

Say all your guns were stolen. With-in minutes you should be able to buy another.

It works in AZ.... Ive personally bought a gun on my lunch hour from an FFL. Showed him my CWP. He verified it was still good while I stood there... I left with a gun.

AZ has a BC system that works that doesn't place unneeded burdens upon law abiding people.

If AZ system was proposed nationally, Id vote for it in a heart beat.

 

[Partizanai]

Free speech advocate or not?

I believe that no one can be the sole arbiter of what anyone else can
or should write in this forum. As long as a civil tone and an appropriate
level of decorum is exercised.
Some may feel compelled to blindly follow the whims and desires of the
present ruling class at 1600 Penn. Ave. I am not one of them and will
never be (if it's this Socialist/Communist or even a President that I like
and respect..)
When a mandate is presented about the tone, content or spirit that can
written in this or any similar forum; my hair (I have very little left actually)
goes up. That is a mild form of Communism and at best, unfair and entirely
"self-serving'.
I had hoped not to tussle with "Pseudo Intellectuals" here at THR but, so be
it. In my opinion everyone has ideas that deserve to be heard. No man or
his ideas should be above another.
I welcome the chance to defend my right to own arms and I refuse to believe
that the "Feds" have the right to know my business. I have never been
arrested, I pay a huge amount of taxes and I am an American. No man and
no government can take away my rights.
As I said earlier, they are not looking at a quick victory. Communists are
patient if anything. Being diligent to protect our rights is our duty.
P

 

[JSH1]

You say that as though the "death" we're risking is the end of RKBA or something. The "death" we're risking is simply passage of UBC. So that's "all the marbles." If we lose, we get UBC, probably with registration. If we win, we don't. Nobody is saying "compromise and let them have a UBC because if we lose they'll repeal the 2nd Amendment!"

I'm looking at this from a much bigger frame of reference. UBC isn't death, especially if you can get something in exchange.

On the other hand, if you fight UBCs for all the marbles and loose it is total defeat.

Again, Washington is a good example. They had a losing hand, still played for all the marbles, and lost.

 

[Deanimator]

UBC isn't death, especially if you can get something in exchange.

Like what?

Registration?
Owner licensing?
An assault weapons ban?

 

[Nom de Forum]

You say that as though the "death" we're risking is the end of RKBA or something. The "death" we're risking is simply passage of UBC. So that's "all the marbles." If we lose, we get UBC, probably with registration. If we win, we don't. Nobody is saying "compromise and let them have a UBC because if we lose they'll repeal the 2nd Amendment!"

There is precious little practical difference from your view of a "compromise win" and your view of a "loss."

There is a big difference. The wrong UBC could be the straw that breaks the back of the RKBA.

I don't see that as a valid exercise.

If you aren't fighting to put in the "Red Team" to play now, WHEN do you feel we will put them on the field? There may be backroom strategies for mitigating failure, but how are you expecting this strategizing to ever be employed? Without sitting down and saying, "we're willing to compromise ..." and thus giving up that next half-of-a-half-of-a-half-of-a-half-of-a-cake we're still holding?

Creating a Red Team is for back-up when failure of the Primary Team occurs or is imminent.

I don't have any good suggestions. No universal background checks are acceptable, so if they FORCE that on us well, I guess we should beg them for no registrations to go along with it. If they're feeling generous in victory, I suppose.

You just made a suggestion. Not a good one mind you. We should plan so as to never be in a begging situation. They are never going to get the UBC they want. We will always be able to influence the outcome, but how much we influence the outcome will be determined by how prepared by having a good plan.

 

[Nom de Forum]

I believe that no one can be the sole arbiter of what anyone else can
or should write in this forum. As long as a civil tone and an appropriate
level of decorum is exercised.

In my opinion everyone has ideas that deserve to be heard. No man or
his ideas should be above another.

That is great to hear.

All threads have topics. To limit drift that obscures the topic, staying on topic is desired. The topic of this thread is very clear. To state it even more simply the topic is about suggestions for crafting a UBC contingency plan. Thank you in advance for any of those.

 

[barnbwt]

I should think it'd be abundantly obvious by now that when gun control is being drafted that neither representatives of those who will be impacted nor properly educated authorities are allowed at the table. It has never been a properly democratic or representative process to date.

Which is why gun control is to be resisted at all costs. That is our 'seat at the table' in the 'gun control debate' if there is one. By the time a law is being drafted, we've already lost and are having terms dictated to us. It's the same attitude we'd have if our side was courageous enough to go for gun liberalization laws once in a while; we wouldn't listen to the hues and cries of ignorant anti's objecting to every single request, and seeking to sabotage us every step of the way.

That UBC is not featuring prominent in realistic federal legislation is evidence enough of our influence. You have to understand that we are The Enemy to these enemies of our freedom, and that not one of our positions has merit in their eyes (nor do theirs in ours). This is not a friendly disagreement between pals or family members with broader reasons to seek compromise or agreement; this is a civilized alternative to sectarian violence over every issue like we see in third world. Therefore, the broad principles and goals are the same.

It's a beautifully balanced system that ensures the most supportable argument wins, so long as our side bothers to do our part (since ours is clearly the most supportable )

TCB

 

[JSH1]

In your example, it only half worked. Its the other half that I'm referring to - Prosecution. If the bad guy lies on the form he should be prosecuted. At only 60+ prosecutions that Bart referenced, its painfully clear that's not happening.

The purpose of background checks is to prevent prohibited people from buy a gun. If you want to prosecute everyone that lies on the form we are going to need a lot more prosecutors.

It works in AZ.... Ive personally bought a gun on my lunch hour from an FFL. Showed him my CWP. He verified it was still good while I stood there... I left with a gun.

AZ has a BC system that works that doesn't place unneeded burdens upon law abiding people.

If AZ system was proposed nationally, Id vote for it in a heart beat.

Again, where are these burdens? If all my guns were stolen today, I could replace them all today. (If I could find them of course)

I show up to my FFL, fill out the form, talk a bit with the FFL, and then head on my way. The longest I've had to wait is 20 minutes.

 

[barnbwt]

"The longest I've had to wait is 20 minutes."
And yet we had to fight to get that three-day override they're trying to do away with now...

The desire for prosecution of PP's lying on the form is based on the assumption that they are clearly motivated to acquire an illegal weapon at that point, presumably for illegal purposes (like mere possession, in our current system). Were they prosecuted and either locked up, or slapped with more watchful probation, the thinking is they will be less able to commit a subsequent crime (using a gun, at least). Since it has been repeatedly proven that a very small number of ne'er do wells commit the vast majority of all crime (especially violent crime), if these form-liars are among that set, their punishment should lead to rapid and sustained drops in crime rate. Which is, you know, the whole purpose of law enforcement in the first place

TCB

 

[happygeek]

The purpose of background checks is to prevent prohibited people from buy a gun.

They don't seem to be doing that.

Cook and Ludwig, hardly shrills for the NRA, tried their best to show that the 1968 GCA and the Brady Bill accomplished something. They were unable to:
http://www.dukechronicle.com/article/2000/08/study-finds-brady-act-ineffective-reducing-homicides
http://home.uchicago.edu/ludwigj/papers/JAMA_Brady_2000.pdf

In the spirit of the OP's thread though, here's my idea: have the ATF declare all Title I firearms to be curios. Somebody mentioned a similar idea in the other thread, but their idea needed a law being passed or changed. All Title I firearms could be declared to be curios tomorrow, no new law needed. Of course, that's assuming you think the 68 GCA was a good idea in the first place.

 

[danez71]

The purpose of background checks is to prevent prohibited people from buy a gun. If you want to prosecute everyone that lies on the form we are going to need a lot more prosecutors.

Apparently you believe and are complacent that there is only enough resources to prosecute ~60 people..

I'm not!; So there is nothing more to talk about on this particular point.

Again, where are these burdens? If all my guns were stolen today, I could replace them all today. (If I could find them of course)

I show up to my FFL, fill out the form, talk a bit with the FFL, and then head on my way. The longest I've had to wait is 20 minutes.

What happen to the 3 day wait? What about the states that have a 10 day wait?

There are 100's if not 1000's of people that get the run around.

If you haven't then that's fine for you.

If you want to disregard what I wrote and debate only based you YOUR own personal experience then there's no point talking to you further because you have nothing to add to the topic as it relates to the Nation.

 

[danez71]

JSH1 said "The longest I've had to wait is 20 minutes."
And yet we had to fight to get that three-day override they're trying to do away with now...

Barnbwt said:

The desire for prosecution of PP's lying on the form is based on the assumption that they are clearly motivated to acquire an illegal weapon at that point, presumably for illegal purposes (like mere possession, in our current system). Were they prosecuted and either locked up, or slapped with more watchful probation, the thinking is they will be less able to commit a subsequent crime (using a gun, at least). Since it has been repeatedly proven that a very small number of ne'er do wells commit the vast majority of all crime (especially violent crime), if these form-liars are among that set, their punishment should lead to rapid and sustained drops in crime rate. Which is, you know, the whole purpose of law enforcement in the first place

TCB

Thanks Barnbwt. Well said.

I was being lazy and didn't feel like pointing out the obvious.






PS: I really wish you would use the quote feature. I would make things better. I'll show you how. No disrespect intended.

 

[Nom de Forum]

I should think it'd be abundantly obvious by now that when gun control is being drafted that neither representatives of those who will be impacted nor properly educated authorities are allowed at the table. It has never been a properly democratic or representative process to date.

Trying to get everyone to create or agree on what is a “properly democratic or representative process” would be a fool’s errand. We can only work with the tools we have. Fortunately we have be able to direct those tools successfully enough to prevent the worst the anti-gunners have attempted. The national AWB is a perfect example of how the language of the law was influenced to limit its effect (gee I could not get an AR-15 with a flash suppressor for awhile) and ultimately disappear (gee I can now get an AR-15 with a flash suppressor).

Which is why gun control is to be resisted at all costs. That is our 'seat at the table' in the 'gun control debate' if there is one. By the time a law is being drafted, we've already lost and are having terms dictated to us. It's the same attitude we'd have if our side was courageous enough to go for gun liberalization laws once in a while; we wouldn't listen to the hues and cries of ignorant anti's objecting to every single request, and seeking to sabotage us every step of the way.

Resisting gun control at all costs does not mean attacking gun control in all directions with equal resources. It is best to avoid or retreat from some battles offered to have the resources to win battles that make those other battles offered irrelevant.

That UBC is not featuring prominent in realistic federal legislation is evidence enough of our influence. You have to understand that we are The Enemy to these enemies of our freedom, and that not one of our positions has merit in their eyes (nor do theirs in ours). This is not a friendly disagreement between pals or family members with broader reasons to seek compromise or agreement; this is a civilized alternative to sectarian violence over every issue like we see in third world. Therefore, the broad principles and goals are the same.

We may currently have our enemy at an impasse, but history has many examples where an impasse ended with surprising suddenness and decisiveness because of one side gaining an unexpected advantage. We must do everything we can to anticipate and plan to prevent that from happening to our disadvantage. The mere fact a UBC is being discussed at all is more than enough of an alarm to prepare a contingency plan to influence how it would be written into law.

It's a beautifully balanced system that ensures the most supportable argument wins, so long as our side bothers to do our part (since ours is clearly the most supportable )

It is not about having the most supportable argument. It is about being prepared to make a supportable argument that sways those who are not “impacted” or “properly educated” but have the political support and power to enact a UBC and any other Gun Control Law.

 

[CoalTrain49]

People who vehemently oppose a UBC Law are encouraged to post to this thread if they will accept for the purposes of this thread, if not in reality, that a National Universal Background Check is inevitable, and we as supporters of the RKBA should discuss what we can do to make it as benign as possible before a law is enacted.

That leaves me out. I'm not seeing that. I think you're being overly optimistic.

 

[Nom de Forum]

That leaves me out. I'm not seeing that. I think you're being overly optimistic.

I respect your right to your opinion. I regret you are opting out because your civility leads to believe you would be a valuable voice to have making suggestions. I am not looking for rubber-stamping of my suggestions, in fact I want the reality check other suggestions can give.

 

[JSH1]

Like what?

Registration?
Owner licensing?
An assault weapons ban?

I think I've been clear here and in other threads on the topic. We may be able to get things like:

• Nationwide reciprocity for concealed carry
• The end of silly limits on barrel lengths and such
• Suppressor sold as a normal gun accessory instead of a Class III item

Apparently you believe and are complacent that there is only enough resources to prosecute ~60 people..

I'm not!; So there is nothing more to talk about on this particular point.

I'm not complacent. I'm realistic in that more prosecutions require more prosecutors.

What happen to the 3 day wait? What about the states that have a 10 day wait?

There are 100's if not 1000's of people that get the run around.

If you haven't then that's fine for you.

If you want to disregard what I wrote and debate only based you YOUR own personal experience then there's no point talking to you further because you have nothing to add to the topic as it relates to the Nation.

I haven't discussed the 3 day wait or 10 day waiting period in some states. I was specifically responding to your statement that if my guns were stolen I should be able to get replacements in minutes. I can.

A 10 day waiting period doesn't relate to the nation, it relates to certain states that have waiting periods. I'm not in favor of waiting periods for people that pass a background check.

I have no problem with giving the FBI 3 days to check up on someone whose background check does not go through. If the check throws up a flag, it should be investigated. The time to do that shouldn't be unlimit but I'm fine with 3 days.

 

[JSH1]

In the spirit of the OP's thread though, here's my idea: have the ATF declare all Title I firearms to be curios. Somebody mentioned a similar idea in the other thread, but their idea needed a law being passed or changed. All Title I firearms could be declared to be curios tomorrow, no new law needed. Of course, that's assuming you think the 68 GCA was a good idea in the first place.

I can get behind that idea. Someone willing to go thru the process of getting a FFL license should be trusted to buy and sell guns across state lines, etc.

 

[Nom de Forum]

I am calling it a night. I sure hope the thread survives until tomorrow when I can post some analysis of suggestions received and get some critiques. Play nice guys, don't kill the thread.

 

[happygeek]

I can get behind that idea. Someone willing to go thru the process of getting a FFL license should be trusted to buy and sell guns across state lines, etc.

Of course, even if that was done CA would still have their silliness: https://www.empirearms.com/cal-ffl.htm

You know, because before they commit a homicide someone would be sure to want to pay $30 to send the ATF their name, SSN, and home address first

 

[jamesjames]

Yesterday's tragic event stokes the emotional fire for UBC. Paradoxically, the miscreant in that episode was an upstanding citizen, not a prohibited person, when he purchased his firearm and jumped through the hoops of his state and federal laws. Universal background checks do not provide universal solutions to crime with a firearm. UBC burdens law-abiding citizens and does nothing to deter crime.

The rational, logical argument is to point out the UBC fallacy and the emotional, fear-based reaction of the anit-gunners that rally around yet another legislative solution to a problem that defies legislative solutions.