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

[Old Dog]

CoalTrain49, I-594 passed here WITH the support of thousands of gun owners. I didn't talk to many gun owners prior to the election who'd actually read through the measure, understood its implications, and compared it to the competing measure.

Frankly, at this point, I don't think we have enough gun owners intelligent enough, with the reading and critical thinking abilities, to impact any potential legislation should it become imminent. Certainly, we didn't get out and campaign effectively in Washington. The proponents of this measure were everywhere, handing out brochures to soccer moms at the grocery stores, while the anti-594 folks handed out propaganda at ... gun shops and gun shows.

All the "we will not comply" folks here simply made us look like cretins, and there was little effort to educate the voters who mattered (the non-gun owners, the fence-sitters and the people who might have listened) -- all the gun organizations here did was preach to the choir (and the choir still didn't listen).

I can't for the life of me think of an effective strategy to temper potential UBC legislation that would get past the average non-gun owner, mostly because we, the RKBA crowd, can't seem to get organized enough and use the anti-gun folks' tactics against them. On the surface, UBCs would seem to Joe Citizen to be a good thing, because Joe Citizen isn't going to see past "helping to keep guns out of the hands of those that shouldn't own them."

 

[Nom de Forum]

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?

Because it is almost a fait accompli that was established by the Courts on other gun control laws. Better to base plans on it being a fait accompli than plans that you can prove it is not.

Please don't concede and let them take a little more of our Rights that our forefathers bled and died for.

Creating a contingency plan is not conceding. Does everyone realize that most contingency plans are never implemented but when they are they are desperately needed?

 

[Deanimator]

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.

I would no more do that than I would make suggestions for "kinder and gentler slavery" if the 13th Amendment somehow got repealed. You don't LET it get repealed, and you refuse to comply if it does.

My answer to registration is "NO, I REFUSE."

 

[Nom de Forum]

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.

You are right, "it's possible that it would have never happened, we'll never know". It is also possible it could have been much worse if we had not used manipulation to compromise the AWB by "declawing" it and giving it an expiration date in making a compromise with opponents.

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.

We all have principles. It is good to be a “principled” person. Principles do change and evolve over time though and sometimes using one principle is the better choice than another. This is a principle you should consider:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lesser_of_two_evils_principle

It is the principle we must use if faced with the dilemma of an inevitable UBC. That is why it is wise to create a contingency plan to provide the choice of the best possible lessor evil.

How about giving me some suggestions we can use if necessary to create a best possible lessor evil?

 

[Nom de Forum]

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.

I am glad you find it to be an excellent discussion. I hope it both informs and entertains. It actually is going more the way I hoped than you imagine. I have been able to get people to help me find, to coin a phrase, a few needles of suggestions in a massive haystack of complaint, ridicule, and refusal. Thanks for participating.

 

[Nom de Forum]

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.

Just so you know, the whole lemmings going over a cliff thing is a myth. A myth mostly repeated due to Hollywood. I think you would increase the credibility of your opinion by avoiding discredited myth and hyperbole ("like a mindless cult") to express yourself. What you say may be true. Don't cast a shadow on that truth with inaccurate platitudes.

 

[Nom de Forum]

Frankly, at this point, I don't think we have enough gun owners intelligent enough, with the reading and critical thinking abilities, to impact any potential legislation should it become imminent. Certainly, we didn't get out and campaign effectively in Washington. The proponents of this measure were everywhere, handing out brochures to soccer moms at the grocery stores, while the anti-594 folks handed out propaganda at ... gun shops and gun shows.

All the "we will not comply" folks here simply made us look like cretins, and there was little effort to educate the voters who mattered (the non-gun owners, the fence-sitters and the people who might have listened) -- all the gun organizations here did was preach to the choir (and the choir still didn't listen).

Yep, tough talk amongst your friends and waving rifles shouting "From my cold dead hands" is not an effective strategy.

I can't for the life of me think of an effective strategy to temper potential UBC legislation that would get past the average non-gun owner, mostly because we, the RKBA crowd, can't seem to get organized enough and use the anti-gun folks' tactics against them. On the surface, UBCs would seem to Joe Citizen to be a good thing, because Joe Citizen isn't going to see past "helping to keep guns out of the hands of those that shouldn't own them."

Yup, the anti-gun folks are great at using guile to manipulate the guileless. We better start using more guile in the fight in addition to expressions of "tooth and nail" tactics. Creating the contingency plan I have been writing about is component of a strategy using guile.

 

[Sam1911]

Ok Nom. Fine.

I'll take UBC in exchange for the repeal of NFA'34 and GCA'68.

You figure out what in the world that would look like and I'll sign on.

 

[Pushrod]

Sam, I won't take UBC unless it is somehow a paperless trail without ANY registration or fees.
We need to repeal '34 and '68 without giving any more ground.

 

[Sam1911]

Pushrod, in a way, that was a joke.

With the NFA and GCA repealed, there wouldn't even be a legal basis for gun laws of any sort. Guns would have no legal status under federal law beyond the Constitutional use of the term "Arms." So it would be pretty funny to see a law written that tried to force background checks for purchases of firearms when there is no legal definition of firearms, nor any system of federal dealers in firearms (or need of any such!), nor a legal justification for any controls of those objects at all.

Rather like handing out gift certificates for a free haircut, to bald men.

 

[R.Ph. 380]

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.

An exercise in futility. If as you say it is inevitable, you will not be invited to the table. If it's NOT inevitable, your proposal for wording choices is a moot point. If it does come about, the only choices we have IS civil disobedience.

In either case, your plans are based on a fallacious argument, That you will be made a party to the discussion.


Wait a moment, did this just become a POLITICAL topic? OOOOOOPPPPPPSSSSS!!!!
Bill

 

[danez71]

Posted by Nom de Forum

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'll take the time to repeat myself....Personally, I think the only way to "derail" it is to get more voters on our side through education and awareness.

Let me start off with a handful of caveats:

1. 
   
   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.
   5. Penalties to the Govt for incomplete or no answer during the back ground check. Both monetary and employment.
      

1. 
   
   
   Thanks Spats for keeping with the intended spirit of the thread.
   
   
   
   

   Ok Nom. Fine.
   
   I'll take UBC in exchange for the repeal of NFA'34 and GCA'68.
   
   You figure out what in the world that would look like and I'll sign on.

   
   
   Thank you too Sam for keeping with the intended spirit of the thread. Even if it was half joking.
   
   
   

   Sam, I won't take UBC unless it is somehow a paperless trail without ANY registration or fees.
   We need to repeal '34 and '68 without giving any more ground.

   
   You too Pushrod, Thanks.
   
   
   
   And for myself, to keep with the intended spirit of the thread....
   
   (I'm not discounting any or all of the above.....)
   
   I mentioned creating a system like AZ's. Maybe not exactly but very similar. It would also include:
   
   1. *Create a system that PPT's (private party transfers) can occur for free (I realize nothing is free..., I mean no added out of pocket expense) - No S/N needed. Go / No Go answer.
      
   2. * Nationwide SHALL ISSUE CCP without a 'Good Cause' clause. SHALL ISSUE. << Thats a period.
      
   3. * Even better, just do away with CCP all together like AZ and a few other states have. Like AZ has done, a CCP gets you extra 'rights'
      
   4. * Length requirements, barrel, overall etc, are no longer restricted - No added tax stamps etc.
      
   5. * Suppressors are no longer restricted with no added tax stamp etc.
      
   6. * Full Auto.... I'm slightly mixed on this one but they should be allowed with no extra costs
      
      
   7. * "No Gun Zones" are severely restricted and are required to have appropriate security in place to make sure everyone inside is safe. Such as metal detectors, secured entrances/exits, armed guards. Schools and Court Houses is my initial thinking.
      
   .
   
   
   And.... I really like Spats idea of:
   
   

   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.)

   
   It would also extend to our political 'leaders'; I'm thinking Spats would agree.
   
   
   My compromise would be to still allow them upto 3 days to investigate any red flags during the UBC

 

[JohnBT]

"How about giving some suggestions for a UBC if it was unavoidable"

If there's a UBC I don't see that any suggestions will be useful or needed. Or accepted by those imposing it. It will be universal, right? No if, ands, or buts. Right? Universal, no exceptions.

Or are you worried about little things like having the UBC available 24/7 at a reasonable price not to exceed some nominal amount? In other words, useless feel good things.

I think it's better to use my time and energy to maintain entire freedoms than worry about saving slivers of them like some faded remembrance in a scrapbook.

Sorry if I'm not following the demands you posted, but they're too convoluted and restrictive and don't encourage the free exchange of information and ideas.

John

 

[DeepSouth]

We all have principles. It is good to be a “principled” person. Principles do change and evolve over time though and sometimes using one principle is the better choice than another. This is a principle you should consider:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lesser...vils_principle

I have considered it and in this case, and most others, I reject it.
It's a cliché at this point but the lesser of two evils is still evil, as the saying goes.

It is the principle we must use if faced with the dilemma of an inevitable UBC. That is why it is wise to create a contingency plan to provide the choice of the best possible lessor evil.

How about giving me some suggestions we can use if necessary to create a best possible lessor evil?

WE must not use it, YOU may, but t I want. It's like a prenuptial agreement, preparing for failure, I understand the idea, I just disagree with it.
I also did give a suggestion, in my first post.

 

[CoalTrain49]

Frankly, at this point, I don't think we have enough gun owners intelligent enough, with the reading and critical thinking abilities, to impact any potential legislation should it become imminent.

Exactly.

There is really no point in trying to convince people who are anti-gun or gun owners who won't look at the facts and try to think their way through this. There seems to be a great number of those in both camps. Maybe UBC's are inevitable, I don't know the answer to that, but I know one thing for sure. You can't make a UBC work in any form or configuration. You can dress a pig up to look like a ballerina but a pig can't dance. Until gun owners figure that out we will continue to get universal back ground checks and registration state by state. 10 at last count. WA and OR were the latest. Gun owners who vote for UBC's, or politicians that vote for them, get what they deserve.

Sorry Nom, but I have no suggestions to further your project. The whole idea just makes me sick.

 

[alexander45]

I have to say it sounds more or less like non de form here is fishing for things that will make a ubc bill more swallowable and as such passable for you know common sense reasons

 

[Ignition Override]

Let's not forget that at least two-three of the recent, highly publicized mass tragedies had nothing to do with any retail or private gun deals, because No Deal was involved.

The psychos were either given a gun, or stole/borrowed it from friends or family.

When "Pro Second Amendment" organizations yield to politicians' unlimited demands, what rights/privileges do Pro Sec. Amend. people receive in exchange?

 

[danez71]

There is really no point in trying to convince people who are anti-gun or gun owners who won't look at the facts and try to think their way through this.

If that's how you feel, then you have largely given up.

The anti's never give up trying to convince people that their anti position is the right position; and neither can we.


If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.

 

[fallout mike]

I'm tired of hearing "compromise". This is ignorant talk. They aren't giving us ANYTHING!

 

[CoalTrain49]

If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.

I believe you made this statement in post #56

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.

Any back ground check is a burden upon a law abiding citizen.

<deleted> No different than the thousands of gun owners here in WA that voted for a UBC. Just like you, they "thought" it was a good thing but couldn't think their way through it.

From your posts, I'm not sure you even know what a UBC is. AZ doesn't have one.

Read up and post again.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/14/us/universal-background-checks/

 

[Nom de Forum]

Pushrod, in a way, that was a joke.

With the NFA and GCA repealed, there wouldn't even be a legal basis for gun laws of any sort. Guns would have no legal status under federal law beyond the Constitutional use of the term "Arms." So it would be pretty funny to see a law written that tried to force background checks for purchases of firearms when there is no legal definition of firearms, nor any system of federal dealers in firearms (or need of any such!), nor a legal justification for any controls of those objects at all.

Rather like handing out gift certificates for a free haircut, to bald men.

Oh Sam! I can’t believe you think that is true. Time for you to google the history of the precedents for the government for establishing gun laws. Repeal of the NFA and GCA would most certainly not end “a legal basis for gun laws of any sort”. If you want to avoid Google, PM Frank Ettin.

 

[Nom de Forum]

An exercise in futility. If as you say it is inevitable, you will not be invited to the table. If it's NOT inevitable, your proposal for wording choices is a moot point. If it does come about, the only choices we have IS civil disobedience.

In either case, your plans are based on a fallacious argument, That you will be made a party to the discussion.

The only thing that is "fallacious" is your logic. "Inevitability" doe not prevent preparation to prevent the language of a law creating a UBC from being the most advantages for the pro-gun cause as possible. It is utter nonsense to claim if a UBC "does come about, the only choices (sic) we have IS civil disobedience"! That would mean abandoning an attempt to over turn it in the Courts and electing new representatives to legislate it out of existence.

 

[Nom de Forum]

I have to say it sounds more or less like non de form here is fishing for things that will make a ubc bill more swallowable and as such passable for you know common sense reasons

That smells like a not so subtle attempt to imply I am working to help the anti-gunners.

I am "fishing" for exactly what I have said.

 

[SuperNaut]

Nom de Forum, if you support the NRA-ILA and the SAF then they are your representatives "at the table." What you are proposing in this thread is counter to the mission statements of both of these organizations. In any scenario, the opposition won't be asking you for your contingency plan.

 

[Nom de Forum]

....Personally, I think the only way to "derail" it is to get more voters on our side through education and awareness.

It is in my opinion that is only one part of a good plan to "derail" a UBC. I believe thinking that is the only way to win is doomed to failure. Most voters do not want to be educated and made aware or react badly when told they need to be. It is to problematic and perilous a tactic to be the main basis for a strategy to defend the RKBA. Recruiting more people to become shooters is a better tactic. So is avoiding political rhetoric that alienates the Left and Moderates. All of which is not what this thread is supposed to be about.