Here's OUR compromise

[MachIVshooter]

I've had it with hearing about "compromise" that is all us giving and them taking. That's not compromise, it's concession. Here are the real compromises I'd be willing to make.

They want background checks on private sales? Fine, we get federal preemption that mandates 50 state CCW reciprocity.

They want to make ARs NFA? OK, we'll do it if they reopen the machine gun registry permanently.

They want secure storage laws? OK, we'll give 'em that, but only after all public schools are federally required to allow CCW.

They keep asking for reasonable, so I say "here ya go". What say my fellow high roaders?

 

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

Your mind is in the right place, but all those proposals would do is increase Federal authority over state issues.


Personally the only reasonable thing is to full incorporate the Second Amendment exactly as it says. "Keep and bear"

No need for and CCW licenses anywhere at anytime at all because the 2A already protects any US citizens rights to bear arms without any infringement.

No secure storage or limits on what kinds of guns people can own since the 2A already protects and US citizens rights to keep arms without any infringement.

The Second Amendment already spells out in plain English what is "reasonable": any rules regarding gun ownership or carrying of any kind are unConstitutional. Everything else is by definition unreasonable.

 

[MachIVshooter]

The Second Amendment already spells out in plain English what is "reasonable": any rules regarding gun ownership or carrying of any kind are unConstitutional. Everything else is by definition unreasonable.

Oh, I agree completely. Trust me.

Regardless, they keep on pushing, so I say let's push back from a different angle. They need a refresher on what the word "compromise" means.

 

[gunnutery]

Obviously these are compromises the left/sheep/uninformed/ect won't want and thus create a stalemate...HOWEVER, my question is, how do we even make such demands?

If it's done through the NRA (assuming they agree to make this push, which I have my doubts if they'd get that conservative for us) they only have lobbying power, not actual swinging votes or large majority in favor of these proposals.

If it's done through an amendment on a proposed bill in the House or Senate, who will motion for the amendment and who will second it (if that's indeed how it's added)?

I like your thinking in some ways, with the whole compromise thing, but even if we can logistically demand these compromises, it's a sad state of affairs that we have to even suggest making compromises at all. "Shall not be infringed" used to mean something. Now we have razor thin margins winning us Heller and McDonald in the SCOTUS. We have large groups of ignorant people demanding they take their own God given rights away.

 

[bigfatdave]

The Second Amendment already spells out in plain English what is "reasonable":

Incorrect

"Reasonable" appears in 4a, not 2a

The right to keep and bear arms does not hinge on the concept of "reasonable", it is anchored to the concept of "shall not be infringed"

No more compromise, no more worthless laws that do nothing to reduce violence or crime. Gun control has FAILED, it is time to toss the crap laws out along with the statist elite that write them.

Offering any compromise implies that we are somehow liable for the actions of a few unbalanced idiot losers that mis-use tools. Stop trying to take on blame for atrocities, it wasn't us that disarmed everyone in that school, and it wasn't us that went into the gun-free-zone and killed a bunch of kids. It isn't us that leave the children unprotected, it isn't us that expect criminals to suddenly follow "one more law".

 

[gunnutery]

I think he means that it was reasonable enough at the time that it didn't need it's own litmus test other than "shall not be infringed."

Correct me if I'm wrong or could've worded it better Ragnar.

 

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

You are correct gunneutery, that is what I meant. I apologize if it wasn't clear.

 

[Pilot]

The other issue is "Common Use" outlined in Heller. The AR-15 is the single most popular rifle in the U.S., so I would think it qualifies as common use and protected by the 2nd Amendment, and that is WITH standard capacity 20 and 30 round magazines.

 

[Rob G]

The other issue is "Common Use" outlined in Heller. The AR-15 is the single most popular rifle in the U.S., so I would think it qualifies as common use and protected by the 2nd Amendment, and that is WITH standard capacity 20 and 30 round magazines.

I think this is probably going to be the central issue that any legal challenges to a potentianl future AWB, magazine restriction, or other similiar legislation will be based on. I believe the majority opinion in Heller specifically mentioned handguns but didn't necessarily refer to other classes of firearms. The standard mentioned at that time was "common use" as Pilot pointed out but I'm not sure how specific of a definition that entails. Probably I should read Miller from which that concept is drawn but I haven't had time yet.

Regardless I feel as if more compromise on our part is pointless. We have already compromised by allowing a great many laws that have shown no positive effect on crime rates to be passed. Now it is time for the other side to "compromise" and work to fix the societal, and in some cases personal, issues that encourage spree killers.

 

[AlexanderA]

MachIVshooter: I like your suggestions. However, these are things that should be raised at the final stage of negotiations (if it gets that far), not now. What you should never do is give things away before the serious negotiations even begin.

 

[JVaughn]

Personally the only reasonable thing is to full incorporate the Second Amendment exactly as it says. "Keep and bear"

No need for and CCW licenses anywhere at anytime at all because the 2A already protects any US citizens rights to bear arms without any infringement.

No secure storage or limits on what kinds of guns people can own since the 2A already protects and US citizens rights to keep arms without any infringement.

+1 Ragnar

We cannot compromise on any of these issues. The machine gun registry itself is unconstitutional, so asking for it to be reopened, while possibly a step in the right direction, is still not good enough. They all should be abolished, all gun laws period. The government lacks the power to force them on us due to the 2A

 

[Deanimator]

Good things in which you can rub their noses, but as everyone realizes, their word is utterly worthless.

But I do heartily support the concept of getting in their faces at EVERY opportunity. It often makes them slip and tell the truth. People knowing who they REALLY are NEVER works to their advantage.

 

[M2 Carbine]

They keep asking for reasonable, so I say "here ya go". What say my fellow high roaders?

No compromise. Believe me there is no such thing as giving in a little to our enemies.

You do not compromise away ANY of your rights.

All you are asking them to do is give back rights that they took away in the first place.

They want to "compromise"?
How about, since they want to take away our rights, they give up such rights as free speech?

 

[Derek Zeanah]

They want background checks on private sales? Fine, we get federal preemption that mandates 50 state CCW reciprocity.

They want to make ARs NFA? OK, we'll do it if they reopen the machine gun registry permanently.

They want secure storage laws? OK, we'll give 'em that, but only after all public schools are federally required to allow CCW.

You know, I'd actually go for this if we also reformed the NFA system to do essentially instant approvals and staffed it properly. We used tax stamps in 1760's; I think we can come up with something printed at the local gunshop (like they do with prescriptions nowadays) that would work as well. Also fast-track those of us that have passed the background checks already, the way CCW holders get to bypass NICS.

The problem is that this will essentially disenfranchise those who can't afford an additional $200 for each purchase. That should be discussed as well.

 

[macadore]

I've had it with hearing about "compromise" that is all us giving and them taking. That's not compromise, it's concession. Here are the real compromises I'd be willing to make.

They want background checks on private sales? Fine, we get federal preemption that mandates 50 state CCW reciprocity.

They want to make ARs NFA? OK, we'll do it if they reopen the machine gun registry permanently.

They want secure storage laws? OK, we'll give 'em that, but only after all public schools are federally required to allow CCW.

They keep asking for reasonable, so I say "here ya go". What say my fellow high roaders?

One more thing. If we pass the background checks, and if we have safe storage, then we can buy machine guns without getting approval from the BATF or paying an additional tax.

 

[armoredman]

A Leftist "compromise" is you give us what we want, we might let you keep a little of what you already have, for now.

I propose the same type of thing - they repeal GCA '68 and NFA '34, and we let them keep Piers Morgan.

 

[MachIVshooter]

You do not compromise away ANY of your rights.

While outright banning things may not stand up to constitutional muster, our SCOTUS ruling was very clear that "reasonable restrcitions" were not unconstitutional. They have upheld the NFA.

I wholeheartedly agree with no compromise, but let's be realistic; Right now, we're not going to get those 3 things I mentioned that pretty much all of us want just by pushing for them, and the 3 things I mentioned that they want have a pretty good chance of getting through our Republican house unless there is a major distraction (possible). I don't think the house would OK an AWB ban (they might go for a magazine capacity restriction), but there is a tremendous amount of public support right now for background checks on private sales and secure storage laws. Most of us already have secure storage anyway, and the way to go about selling privately and not arming someone who shouldn't is a constant theme here on THR. ARs going NFA would suck, but not so much if the AR was a new, legal M16 for $1,500.

What I'm suggesting by putting these items on any kind of gun control bill is basically the opposite of the Hughes amendment. Either they find it unpalatable and the whole thing dies, or they go forward with legislation they were going to anyway, and we get something in return for what we're giving up.

I'm looking for other ideas, like Derek's (streamline and fast track background checks and NFA stuff for the good guys who have already been through it once).

 

[Tommygunn]

I say no.
Too much government authority.
And why should semiautos be NFA weapons? It's bad enough they have the friggin' law and closed the book in the '80s.
I should register and pay $200 to buy a Bushmaster or Noveske AR-15?
No way.

Making ALL private sales subject to a NICS check? OK I buy guns and get NICS checked; it's really no big deal. It takes a few minutes and I have never been accidently denied, even the one time I neglected to put my social Sec. ## on the 4473 (which is optional) it went through fine.
But what I want is to know just why people (pro, anti, undecided, Martians, Vulcans, Klingons, Jabba the Hutt, whatever) really think that such a law would really help. Why would criminals do it? There's already an underground in firearms (if you don't believe me ask drug runners, gang members, drug cartel members) and we all know the bad guys can steal what they want. Why would such a law stop Adam Lanza, who stole his mother's guns and shot her dead in the process?
It boils down to, really, throwing the antis a whole bunch of crumbs which will not stop the psychos....and the antis will still be crying for more restrictions -- even outright bans PLUS confiscation because that will be the only option left.
This just is not right.

 

[MachIVshooter]

I should register and pay $200 to buy a Bushmaster or Noveske AR-15?
No way.

Would you be so opposed if said registration allowed you to plop a 12.5" upper on it and install FA fire control group?

Making ARs NFA while at the same time reopening the MG registry would be a huge boost for FFL07 SOTs, churning out tens of thousands of MG conversions on ARs.

 

[Tommygunn]

No.
The second sentence in my post said it all.
FA is nice, it's cool. But it is also highly over rated and it is expensive. A 12.5" barrel presents no great advantage and shorter barrels seem to make gas operated systems run harder.
The trade-off just isn't worth it for me. YMMV.

 

[ColtPythonElite]

I say "No" to any compromise.

 

[Pilot]

We have been compromising since 1934 to the point that many of us lack the basic 2A rights to have or carry a gun. States like CA, NJ, NY, HI, IL, CT, MA, MD, RI, etc have effectively made it overly difficult to exercise our rights already. NO MORE.

 

[Skribs]

MachIV, I like the general sentiment of your post. I agree that the 2A should mean "shall not be infringed", but if there is going to be a compromise it should BE a mutual compromise, instead of one side going "we want X, so we'll take 0.5X instead, that's a compromise, right?"

I still think they just scratch all gun laws and keep them out of the hands of people who shouldn't have guns by keeping those people locked up.

 

[mljdeckard]

I do agree that we should demonstrate that compromise involves give and take.

 

[CharlieDeltaJuliet]

I really like your post MachIVshooter, because you are absolutly right. The point about concession is correct. We are expected to give and give and give. I for one stand by "Shall Not Be Infringed". I know there are many more that believe this. Thanks for the post MachIV...