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

[Twiki357]

Nom deForum:
So PJSrog I ask that you please consider a scenario: The political climate in this nation has moved toward almost certainty some type of national UBC law will be enacted. You have an opportunity to prepare language for that law. What language do you propose that realistically has a chance of making it into the law and making that law as benign as possible? Give me your suggestions. I am not looking for you and I to mutually agree on those suggestions.

You fail to consider one very important fact. A UBC will be composed by extreme anti-gun legislators like Feinstein. There will be NO seat at the table for anyone with a contrary view to influence the language in a UBC law. It will be a yes or no vote and the only way to oppose a yes vote is to swamp every legislator to vote no. The hard core anti-gunners will not submit to a “benign” compromise. If they lose, a compromise [less intrusive] UBC is unnecessary and if they win, it’s too late. The only alternative that I see is the potential of a “Poison pill” amendment and the injection of that is solely dependent on who controls the house and/or senate, think Pelosi and Reed.

 

[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 anti-gunners that rally around yet another legislative solution to a problem that defies legislative solutions.

The left loves legislative solutions. I know, because I occupied that real estate for a long time. The left craves the safety and security provided by mother government, even if its just an illusion. The left is a pacifist place that doesn't understand the discipline of arms and responsible gun ownership. They see every crime with a firearm as proof of the failure of an armed society, instead of the infinitesimally exceptional statistical anomaly that each one is. The armed citizenry is 99.9999% safe and secure on any given day. The emotional need of the left to make it 100% can never be satisfied. Sensational media coverage including social media hypes the emotion and kills of the logic of the citizenry.

The problem with politics is that it is always moved by emotion more than by reason. Trying to be Mr. Spock and drafting pieces of a UBC contingency plan not only has us giving away half a loaf to begin with, but handicaps us in an asymmetrical fight without a righteous emotional component to rally around.

 

[Deanimator]

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

From the people who want to ban:

• concealed carry
• "assault weapons"
• flash hiders

You're more likely to get the majlis to vote to create state liquor stores... but you already know that.

 

[DeepSouth]

Nom de Forum

Consider mass noncompliance. Look at New York's safe act and its estimated 95% noncompliance rate. A law with a noncompliance rate that high is no law at all.

Fight them tooth and nail and if they do it anyway, ignore them.


I'm reminded of the saying
"You have to stand for something or you'll fall for anything"

 

[Pushrod]

Someone please tell me, where in our Federal Constitution it gives the Federal Government the right to impose restrictions on a fundamental Right, e.g. UBC's for the Second Amendment?

Please someone point this out.

Otherwise we should be fighting them tooth and nail to stop or reverse ANY infringements.

 

[danez71]

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

I'll concede that they may need more to prosecute ALL of them but...

It's not remotely believable that they only have enough resources to only prosecute ~60

Is there ANY info out there that even the Govt has said they are limited to ~60 prosecutionso because of limited resources?

To argue the point they way you are is NOT being realistic.

It's either being complacent with 60 prosecutions or disingenuous in that you think they could do more but didn't want to acknowledge it because it undermines your argument.

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.

Then I think that your reply was a little disingenuous - I think you knew I was talking in general terms.

As was already pointed out, they want to do away with the 3 day results in Sell rule and they never wanted to give us that to begin with.

After all, it's only common sense that the Govt has ample time to drag their feet... I mean ... to properly investigate.

Again, theres burden screwing over the honest guy. Just because it hasn't happened to you doesn't mean your argument is applicable to everyone.

 

[Deanimator]

Again, theres burden screwing over the honest guy. Just because it hasn't happened to you doesn't mean your argument is applicable to everyone.

Isn't the frequent anti-gun argument, "Nobody's ever robbed ME at gunpoint. Nobody needs to carry a gun!"?

 

[CoalTrain49]

I think this discussion is counterproductive. At the very least, it's way premature.

The assumption of this thread is that the next step in gun control (universal background checks) is inevitable. It's not.

In any case, when you're negotiating, you start with your maximalist position. You don't start by giving away half the store. If you then "compromise" 50/50, your opponent wins 75% of what he wants instead of 50%. Then he comes back and starts it all over again, you "compromise" again, and now you have half your 25%. And so on and on until you have nothing.

Guns are just too polarizing an issue any more for there to be any meaningful compromise. Both sides are "all in." Either we're going to have guns in this country (legally), or we won't. It's really as simple as that.

This covers it pretty well for me.

I'm living the "compromise" here in WA. I watched out of state interests spend 10 million dollars here to steam roller a UBC initiative ballot. Then they did it again in Oregon. Most people who live with universal back ground checks/registration don't think it's so great.

The only way forward now is no compromise. I'm "all in".

 

[Nom de Forum]

....You're more likely to get the majlis to vote to create state liquor stores... but you already know that.

That is more likely than you realize. Do a little research on alcohol sales in Islamic countries and you will be very surprised at how prevalent it is.

 

[PJSprog]

So PJSrog I ask that you please consider a scenario: The political climate in this nation has moved toward almost certainty some type of national UBC law will be enacted. You have an opportunity to prepare language for that law. What language do you propose that realistically has a chance of making it into the law and making that law as benign as possible? Give me your suggestions. I am not looking for you and I to mutually agree on those suggestions.

I completely reject your premise of the inevitability of such a law. Apparently, I'm not seeing the same national trends you are seeing, because I see people flocking to more conservative ideals of late. This is especially true regarding firearms related subjects. Even the staunch liberals in government like Harry Reid have recently admitted that there is no public appetite for more gun control laws right now.

I would and will refuse to take part in the destruction of the Constitutionally guaranteed rights of all Americans. You may tread the attempted appeasement route if you choose, but don't expect me to follow. If you are still unsure of my position, please reference my signature line.

 

[Spats McGee]

Let me start off with a handful of caveats:

1. I vehemently oppose UBCs. I do not think that there's any way to accomplish the goal of UBCs (keeping guns out of the hands of dangerous people) while avoiding further infringement on the RKBA.
2. I do not think that gun owners will get "a seat at the table." The folks pushing UBCs do not want a compromise. They want us disarmed, and they'll stoop to any level to accomplish that.
3. Even if we were to have a seat at the table, the antigun crowd has repeatedly shown itself unwilling to deal honestly and good faith. I do not negotiate with liars and cheats.
4. I do not see any way to successfully prosecute alleged UBC violations without registration.
5. I do not think that UBCs are in any way "inevitable."

Now, with all of that said, going back to the original OP:

This also is not a thread for people who want to discuss way to evade any law or cache guns as part of a contingency plan.

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.

First off, if a UBC law were passed, it would have to be over my objections, and I would campaign heavily against it. However, if it passed, I would comply, strictly and to the letter, and not one iota more. I would likely research the effective date of the law, and buy every last gun that I will ever need or want prior to the effective date. That is neither evading the law, nor "caching guns." It is compliance.

With respect to the legislative aspect of this:

1. The UBC part of the law must have a sunset provision, preferably no more than 5 years.
2. I want a reauthorization provision that requires certain items, such as: (a) the DOJ has to successfully prosecute some certain percentage (70%?) of convicted felons reported attempting to purchase firearms; (b) a better (more streamlined) appeals process for those wrongly denied firearms purchases. Maybe a few more items.
3. A waiver of sovereign immunity under 42 USC 1983 for BATFE & its officials for violations of federal or state firearms laws. (I'm just shooting from the hip here, so I'm not entirely sure how I'd lay this out. I'm thinking of Brian Terry's family and Fast & Furious.)
4. Suppressors removed from the NFA and available without a stamp. I'd prefer that they be available with no UBC required, like magazines. I'd be OK with them needing to be serialized and have a UBC required.

 

[AlexanderA]

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

That's the ostensible purpose. In reality, background checks have never prevented prohibited people from obtaining guns. At most, they may have slowed them down a bit.

The real purpose of background checks is as an incremental step in a larger, long-term plan to eliminate (legal) guns entirely. The antigunners are pushing background checks because they seem to be the most politically palatable of the steps that can be taken. Some people, even some gun owners, are naively accepting this.

We already have background checks for transactions with dealers. The proposal has to do with expanding the background check system to all private transactions. This can only be effective if it goes hand in hand with registration, so that there's a paper trail for each gun.

Universal registration has no purpose other than to facilitate confiscation. Given the presence of the 2nd Amendment, confiscation can take place in stages, by broadening the classes of "prohibited persons" by including, for example, people with misdemeanor convictions, people with any mental health issues, the spouses and live-in relatives of people in such categories, etc., etc. You end up with a negligible portion of the population being allowed to own a gun.

The ironic thing is that even in the ideal world of the gun-grabbers, guns would not be eliminated, but would be driven underground. (We see this exact thing in European countries with strict gun-control legislation.) The experience with alcohol Prohibition should have taught us that this leads to all sorts of collateral ill effects.

 

[Nom de Forum]

You fail to consider one very important fact. A UBC will be composed by extreme anti-gun legislators like Feinstein. There will be NO seat at the table for anyone with a contrary view to influence the language in a UBC law. It will be a yes or no vote and the only way to oppose a yes vote is to swamp every legislator to vote no. The hard core anti-gunners will not submit to a “benign” compromise. If they lose, a compromise [less intrusive] UBC is unnecessary and if they win, it’s too late. The only alternative that I see is the potential of a “Poison pill” amendment and the injection of that is solely dependent on who controls the house and/or senate, think Pelosi and Reed.

I disagree with what you state is “one very important fact”. It is not a fact. On any UBC Bill Feinstein and her ilk cannot prevent other legislators from either attaching amendments or creating one or more competing Bills that can block or neuter the bill she and her buddies propose. Of course that will not happen unless we attempt it and it is wise to have in advance well though out pre-planned proposals in a contingency plan. I think you already know this. Ultimately we may lose the fight to stop a national UBC but it will not matter if we not only control the language in the law but also force a compromise that increases other gun rights.

 

[Nom de Forum]

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

That will not be enough. You cannot use a rational, logical argument to convince people refusing to behaving irrationally. These people can only be politically manipulated.

The left loves legislative solutions.

So does The Right. They just love them for other issues that limit promotion of personal liberty and public safety.

The problem with politics is that it is always moved by emotion more than by reason. Trying to be Mr. Spock and drafting pieces of a UBC contingency plan not only has us giving away half a loaf to begin with, but handicaps us in an asymmetrical fight without a righteous emotional component to rally around.

Drafting a contingency plan gives away nothing. It is a plan that may or may not be implemented in the future if the need arises. It is not a plan intended to be implemented because of immediate need. Having a contingency plan is intended to prevent the loss of the whole “loaf” because we are unprepared.

 

[Nom de Forum]

Consider mass noncompliance. Look at New York's safe act and its estimated 95% noncompliance rate. A law with a noncompliance rate that high is no law at all.

Fight them tooth and nail and if they do it anyway, ignore them.


I'm reminded of the saying
"You have to stand for something or you'll fall for anything"

People who rely on “tooth and nail” to win a fight usually lose to those who also have teeth and nails and use guile. A contingency plan is a tool part of using guile to win. I would rather not make a stand. Fixed fortifications are obsolete, the clever use of mobile warfare is the way battles are won today.

O.K. I hope everyone realizes how much I realize that many people oppose a UBC, do not want discussion of any thing about a UBC, and are upset and think I am a traitor for creating discussion. Unfortunately, many things that are upsetting to be discussed should be discussed. I would really like to now spend time considering suggestions for a contingency plan that would enable us to control the language of, or derail, any UBC if it is inevitable some type of UBC will be enacted. I am referring to use of language not acts of civil disobedience after a UBC becomes the law of the land.

 

[Nom de Forum]

.......First off, if a UBC law were passed, it would have to be over my objections, and I would campaign heavily against it. However, if it passed, I would comply, strictly and to the letter, and not one iota more. I would likely research the effective date of the law, and buy every last gun that I will ever need or want prior to the effective date. That is neither evading the law, nor "caching guns." It is compliance.

With respect to the legislative aspect of this:

1. The UBC part of the law must have a sunset provision, preferably no more than 5 years.
2. I want a reauthorization provision that requires certain items, such as: (a) the DOJ has to successfully prosecute some certain percentage (70%?) of convicted felons reported attempting to purchase firearms; (b) a better (more streamlined) appeals process for those wrongly denied firearms purchases. Maybe a few more items.
3. A waiver of sovereign immunity under 42 USC 1983 for BATFE & its officials for violations of federal or state firearms laws. (I'm just shooting from the hip here, so I'm not entirely sure how I'd lay this out. I'm thinking of Brian Terry's family and Fast & Furious.)
4. Suppressors removed from the NFA and available without a stamp. I'd prefer that they be available with no UBC required, like magazines. I'd be OK with them needing to be serialized and have a UBC required.

Thank you for the suggestions. They are very helpful for consideration of what would be used to form a plan.

Hey everybody how about some more suggestions like these that Spats McGee took the time and gave the courtesy of supplying. Thanks again Spats!

 

[JSH1]

This covers it pretty well for me.

I'm living the "compromise" here in WA. I watched out of state interests spend 10 million dollars here to steam roller a UBC initiative ballot. Then they did it again in Oregon. Most people who live with universal back ground checks/registration don't think it's so great.

The only way forward now is no compromise. I'm "all in".

You are not living with "compromise" in Washington. You are living with the results when you do not compromise, play for all the marbles, and lose.

 

[DeepSouth]

People who rely on “tooth and nail” to win a fight usually lose to those who also have teeth and nails and use guile. A contingency plan is a tool part of using guile to win. I would rather not make a stand. Fixed fortifications are obsolete, the clever use of mobile warfare is the way battles are won today.

Tooth and nail worked last time in case you didn't notice. And I prefer to make a stand, I have principles that I simply will not "compromise" on.

 

[Nom de Forum]

Tooth and nail worked last time in case you didn't notice. And I prefer to make a stand, I have principles that I simply will not "compromise" on.

Do you not realize that we used guile to "declaw" the AWB and set-up an expiration date?

 

[Deanimator]

That is more likely than you realize. Do a little research on alcohol sales in Islamic countries and you will be very surprised at how prevalent it is.

There are heroin sales in NE Ohio even as we speak.

I've yet to come across a "State Heroin Store".

 

[Nom de Forum]

There are heroin sales in NE Ohio even as we speak.

I've yet to come across a "State Heroin Store".

Ever heard of a State supervised methadone clinic?

Come on, Deanimator, you have made it abundantly clear how you feel about a UBC. How about giving some suggestions for a UBC if it was unavoidable that one would soon become law.

 

[Pushrod]

Nom, you still have answered the question on where the FedGov gets these powers to make a UBC law for someone exercising their Second Amendment Rights?

Please don't concede and let them take a little more of our Rights that our forefathers bled and died for. You said you served, I have also. There was an oath we took. We don't disregard that oath just because are terms of service are over.

We stood up to the anti-second amendment crowd when they had their golden opportunity after Sandy Hook to bring about UBC. If they didn't get it then, they will not get it now unless we, the supporters of the Second Amendment, back down and let them.

It will be a constant fight, but it is a fight we can win. Gun ownership in America continues to grow after each murderous rampage. We need to educate the public with truth and reason against the lies and rhetoric of the left. That is how we will continue to grow our side and win this war against tyranny.

 

[DeepSouth]

Do you not realize that we used guile to "declaw" the AWB and set-up an expiration date?

Yes I do, but if their had a different makeup in Washington iit could have become permanent. But if we had fought harder and not compromised it's possible that it would have never happened, we'll never know.


The fact is some people have principles they absolutely will not compromise on and for many of us that includes gun control in any form, or at least UBC's. No offense but obviously you do not have that principle. For those that do have that principal they will stand strong and firm in opposition until the bitter end, and nothing you or anyone else will say or do will change that.

 

[PJSprog]

By the way, Nom, I know this thread isn't going the way you'd hoped it would go, but I consider this to be an excellent discussion.

 

[CoalTrain49]

The real purpose of background checks is as an incremental step in a larger, long-term plan to eliminate (legal) guns entirely. The antigunners are pushing background checks because they seem to be the most politically palatable of the steps that can be taken. Some people, even some gun owners, are naively accepting this.

Exactly. They took it hook, line and sinker here in WA. Weirdest thing I've ever seen, gun owners looked like a bunch of lemmings going over a cliff. All you have to do these days is a media blitz telling everyone this is good for you. Kind of like a mindless cult following of sorts.