Proposed compromises on gun laws

[Armymutt]

The President says that there need to be compromises in gun laws. I have proposed the following. I'm planning on sending these to my senators and reps.

1. Registration of all firearms to be used on federally owned land. If a state wishes to do the same for the land it owns, fine. In exchange, the machine gun registry is to be re-opened to allow the registration of new machine guns, along with allowing the new manufacture and importation of machine guns. Of all the weapons used in crimes, legal machine guns have the best track record. Since 1934, only one has been used.
2. Back ground checks for all firearms transfers, either through the NICS or some other system set up for the owner of the weapon to conduct the check. No requirement to maintain a bound book for transfers, but it is on the seller to prove that a check was done. In exchange, suppressors are removed from being NFA items. These are safety devices similar to the muffler on a car. They do not eliminate the report of a firearm, despite Hollywood depiction to the contrary. This will reduce noise pollution at both indoor and outdoor ranges, making shooting sports even safer.
3. Mandatory firearm safety education for anyone under the age of 18 on the date of passage. This will be conducted every year in every public school, with the level of education appropriate for the age group. Initially it would start with the don't touch idea, and progress all the way to maintenance and shooting fundamentals. This will ensure that all students know how to safely handle firearms, even if they have no interest in them. Since most of the firearm fatalities are due to accidents, education is the way to go.

 

[cfullgraf]

Reasonable proposal but there are some gun enthusiasts that will say gun enthusiasts have already compromised.

When it comes to the President, he says, "Let's compromise, and do it my way."

 

[AlexanderA]

The antigunners aren't interested in anything like this. It will be rejected out of hand by them, since it's transparently pro-gun. On the other hand, the pro-gun side will still reflexively yell "No compromise!"

 

[Vartarg]

Nope....

Compromise and capitulation aren't the answer.....

NO registration, period....and no "mandatory education" on gun safety.....either we're for liberty, or we're not.

This perhaps well intended "proposed compromise" is a non starter IMHO.

George

 

[sota]

NICS should be free.
The call should have a unique ID# announced to the caller (there's your verification).
If the call cannot be completed (busy, overload, NICS down) the ID must be considered cleared. 3 attempts should be made but not requiring them to take more than 30 minutes to complete.
Better yet why isn't NICS an online web service? If I can file my state sales taxes every month why can't NICS be an web form? have it email confirmations to both parties. And of course there should be "an app for that" as well.

In this day and age call logs are easy to obtain from any carrier, and I can't imagine any modern cell phone not having a log dump capability. Even my landline (which granted is VoIP (OOMA)) has a full call history log going back several years that I can access.

 

[Arkansas Paul]

So you're willing to give up some rights in exchange for others?
What exactly would that accomplish? You're still letting them get their foot in the door for registration by requiring universal background checks. And #1 makes no sense whatsoever. So they won't be registered unless you take them onto Federally owned land? Then there is a registration process? How exactly will that work?

Sorry folks, if you're willing to give an inch, you're part of the problem. There should be ABSOLUTELY NO COMPROMISE when it comes to constitutional rights. If you want to compromise about the budget, that's fine. The parties have differing opinions on that. But you don't compromise the Bill of Rights.

Why don't we compromise on the 1st Amendment as well? Let's say, you can have freedom of speech, except on Federally owned land. But we can say what we want to on our own property.
Doesn't make a hell of a lot of sense does it?

 

[Carl N. Brown]

Registration of all firearms to be used on federally owned land. If a state wishes to do the same for the land it owns, fine.

The rationale being what? I am aware I can travel on a public highway in Virginia (and probably other states, but it became an issue with guns in Virginia) and be on federally owned land or state owned land (parks or designated forest) with no clear sign that that is the case. Sounds like a trap for the unwary innocent to me.

 

[Arbo]

No....

No more compromise. There are plenty enough laws and restrictions in place, that they refuse to enforce them is their fault. No new laws, no new restrictions.

 

[JustinJ]

Stop for a moment and think how these "compromises" appear to a non-gun enthusiast. It would be like if there were a school bus hit by a train and car enthusiasts said they would be willing to go for mandatory stops at RR crossings if we don't have to use blinkers and wear seat belts any more.

By compromise, the president is talking about us giving into some restrictions to reduce gun violence as opposed to much more restrictive ones. What do your steps do to reduce mass shootings or general gun violence? Your proposal makes it appear that only one side in this debate is interested in such.

I'm not advocating new restrictions but these fantasies about trading away for machine guns or silencers are not going to happen.

By the way, how exactly is a mandatory check of all sales going to be enforceable without a national gun registry? There are millions upon millions of guns in existence today. All one has to say is they sold it before the new law took effect.

 

[Neo-Luddite]

No ~ no compromise. We'll get the MG registry open on our own through legislation or the SCOTUS sometime. And we will NEVER be fooled and hoodwinked in the wee hours as happened with this in 1986.

And as for the last bit about mandatory training - no dice. It opens a whole un-intended set of scenarios. Training is from elder to child in a family/family-like dynamic (family/scouts/ect.).

 

[Trung Si]

When it comes to the President, he says, "Let's compromise, and do it my way

That's exactly what he is saying!
There are about 20k Firearms Laws already in effect, that's enough No Compremise, No more New Laws.

 

[bigfatdave]

required readong on this subject:
http://thelawdogfiles.blogspot.com/2013/01/a-repost.html

We've "compromised" enough. No more.

 

[jimmyraythomason]

No Compromise, No more New Laws.

That pretty well says it for me too!

 

[MErl]

not sure if this post is serious or related to the date.

 

[Torian]

1 has no chance, because it will facilitate nothing aside from eventual gun confiscation schemes. We've already seen murmurings of this from liberal politicians in New York and California. As much as Democrats try to deny it, there are those within their party that would jump at the opportunity to conduct nationwide gun confiscation if they were able to pull it off. You can sit back and assume the Constitution will protect you...but it hasn't done much to stop the deluge of anti-gun laws at the state level.

2. As long as it is properly implemented (not targeting guns that are passed down, gifts etc), I would consider it. The problem is, there is no gun show loop hole, and the vast majority of firearms are already undergoing background checks. This measure seems like nothing more than political theater.

3. I'm a huge proponent of "proper" firearms training for our young people, however I have concerns that liberals would never allow instruction other than "don't touch, and tell the police / parents / teachers / etc if you see a firearm". If we are going to train young people what NOT to do with firearms, we should also give them the opportunity to properly handle and shoot firearms. I fear many within our schools would just use this opportunity to brainwash children into hating guns, and repel any effort to teach them otherwise.

 

[r1derbike]

NO! No new laws (they can't/won't enforce ones already on the books). They care not to reduce the chaos/mayhem on the streets of metro areas.

They want us to register all our guns, then forcibly take them away at some undetermined time in the future, leaving us to the will of crazed, armed murderers.

A disarmed society is their endgame.

If there's one glaring, unbelievable fact this administrations' policy has shown, it is they are not interested in reducing mass murder in this country, especially in metro areas. Only punitive laws to punish law-abiding citizens, and seize their weapons in the future.

They even want to remove our capacity of self-defense in multiple armed criminals' home invasions; limiting standard capacity magazines.

No compromise, no new laws, no BS. I've had it with this administration.

 

[danoam]

Not one inch.

Sent from my Droid X2 using Tapatalk 2 when I should probably be doing something else.

 

[FitGunner]

N-O. No. Enforce the existing laws.

 

[medalguy]

"....shall not be infringed...." about covers it for me.

 

[guitarguy314]

No NO NO

No Registration. No Mandatory education. No Universal Background checks.

Stop playing into their hands.

We need to wake up and take our rights back, not concede more of them to the so called "greater good".

Every gun law on the books should be stricken from post haste. The fact is that every waiting period, liscence requirement, background check and ban is an infringement.

Gun laws don't stop criminals with guns. Good guys with guns do.

 

[TenDriver]

I like the idea of mandatory education as long as it includes hands on instruction and time at a shooting range. While we're at it, let's add some additional "basic training", physical fitness training, uniforms, code of conduct and rank to it.

 

[Torian]

Great idea, sounds like some JROTC programs I know. Unfortunately, some of the more delicate creatures in our society might run from such a concept

 

[Armymutt]

Some of you didn't read it clearly enough or you don't understand the current reality. I said "used", not transported. If you want to hunt on federally owned land such as a military installation, you are required to register the weapon with the MPs. How many of you go shooting on federal lands? I would take this minor (and already required) inconvenience over having a closed registry and import restrictions any day. Paying $15K for an MP5 puts it beyond all but the most wealthy.
Given my general mistrust of pretty much everyone, and my rather compulsive desire to keep myself out of any sort of legal issue that might result in someone taking my guns, if I were to sell a gun, you can bet there will be a background check involved. This method makes the government establish a non-FFL usable system, and would probably allow cross-border FTF transfers without an FFL. Keeping suppressors in the NFA is just stupid. Of course it's political theater - it's using Josh Sugarman's methods against him.
If the education content is dictated by Congress, the schools have no choice. You can say "no mandatory education", but that leaves an avenue of attack from the left, claiming that guns are too dangerous to be left to untrained people. By instituting Conservation Clubs in schools, in the manner of the 1940s, students will have the opportunities to learn sportsmanship, safe firearm handling, maintenance, etc. When opposed, we can then say, "Look at the left, they oppose educating people and making firearm ownership safer. What is their real agenda?" Hard for them to say that they aren't after guns when you give them common sense plans.

 

[NavyLCDR]

3. Mandatory firearm safety education for anyone under the age of 18 on the date of passage. This will be conducted every year in every public school, with the level of education appropriate for the age group. Initially it would start with the don't touch idea, and progress all the way to maintenance and shooting fundamentals. This will ensure that all students know how to safely handle firearms, even if they have no interest in them. Since most of the firearm fatalities are due to accidents, education is the way to go.

I have enough issues with what the government indoctrinates my daughter with now, I certainly don't need them indoctrinating her in regards to firearms.

 

[snake_plisskin]

I really dont understand the first "compromise". It sounds like you want to take a current inconvenience for people shooting on military bases and apply it to anyone that shoots on public lands. Arent national parks/forrests considered federal land?

Also how would this increase safety for anyone?