Thoughts on a complete rewrite...

[Spats McGee]

Godfather'sGun, how do you propose to reconcile your proposal with the conflicts with other constitutional provisions that I have mentioned in prior posts?

 

[Madcap_Magician]

I really don't see how this proposal would change anything. If you're tired of arguing about the meaning and extent of the 2A, fine, but proposing new things to argue about will not reduce the amount of arguing, and that's all you're really doing here.

 

[Godfather'sGun]

Godfather'sGun, how do you propose to reconcile your proposal with the conflicts with other constitutional provisions that I have mentioned in prior posts?

As I mentioned previously, that's why I brought the idea here, to ask for ideas and assistance from those who are specialists. I'm not a lawyer, you are, you tell me. Don't get me wrong, I don't mean you have to, just that that is why I am here with it, for the help from others that may be willing to make it workable. Barring that, then as I also mentioned previously, lets come up with something else that may move us forward. The problem I see and want to reconcile, is that the majority of those on our side, including orgs such as the NRA, are always on the defence, rarely offence. We are always fighting new proposals, rarely puting forward our own. We do, yes (national reciprocity, suppressor), but it is minor compared to what we should be trying to accomplish and the antis are pushing for. Additionally, and one of the reasons I made my idea the way I did, is that we are just one SCOTUS appointment from losing it all. Everyone assumes that amending the Constitution is hard, which by way of a true amendment, it is. But a de facto change only requires five judges. I included in my plan ways to prevent that, but you and others say they go against other constitutional laws or are just plain unworkable. That's fine, I get that, but let's work on something else that will. The upcoming elections, including the next presidential, are not looking that great from a pro-2nd perspective. We won't know for sure until they actually get here, so we'll see, but I believe we need to go on the offensive while we still have a majority because we don't know for sure what the future holds. Does that mean trying to fast track legislation, or forcing a SCOTUS ruling, I don't know, as both of those are very difficult and slow processes with many requirements to actually make them happen. But as I said a moment ago, we currently have a majority, and hopefully will for at least a few more years, so let's make something of it. That said, what do we do?

For one, I think we need to think outside the box. So far, SCOTUS has ruled that the 2nd does convey an individual right to own (D.C. v. Heller). It also ruled that it extends to the states (McDonald v. Chicago). Additionally, they ruled it extends to arms not in existence at the time of ratification (Caetano v. Massachusetts). What it has not ruled on are carrying in public for self defense, may issue versus shall issue and the like, and if Caetano v. Massachusetts applies to type of firearm (AR-15, etc.). Why don't we go after this while we hold the SCOTUS majority? I know it is complicated and easier said than done (especially by the poor bastard that is actually on the line), but it is an avenue we can attempt to at least look at. I'm sure there is someone being dragged through the mud of their local system because they had the "audacity" to exercise their 2nd amendment rights. Maybe we could drum up enough support to find and help such an individual fight it to the top? Hell, being from NY and still having family there, I've often toyed with the idea of applying for a non-resident carry license just so I could fight their inevitable "no way in Hell" response, but I don't have the resources to even get the process started. As a lawyer, Spats, can you tell me if that is even possible if the lack of resources wasn't an issue? Non-resident carry licenses will be unnecessary if we win national reciprocity, so what about a NY resident trying instead? Anyone in Cali want to do the same for their "assault weapon" ban? Can we simply get enough support for a lawsuit instead of someone having to get arrested first? What about magazine capacity limits? The Hughes amendment or NFA? Legislation to accomplish these things may work, but are easier to change later. SCOTUS rulings are harder to get done, but are also harder to overturn.
Is any of this something we could do? Anyone on this forum a high official of one of the pro-2nd orgs that can put the word out to get things rolling? Maybe we could just start a gofundme campaign and do it ourselves?

 

[Spats McGee]

Barring that, then as I also mentioned previously, lets come up with something else that may move us forward.

Well, I really don't think you and I have the same concept of "moving forward," but I'll play. We're not going to get anywhere through appeasement. We've tried that repeatedly (1934, 1968, 1986, and 1994 immediately come to mind).

We have to retake the narrative. Unfortunately, virtually all of the media is based in either NY or CA. So that's an uphill battle. Social media tends to be populated by much younger people, and they tend to be more liberal. So that's an uphill battle, too. Nonetheless, we have to stand our ground. We have to speak up. And we have to make them explain. By that, I mean that when someone claims that "assault weapons" have to be outlawed, make them explain why that AR chambered in .223 is any deadlier than grandpa's Winchester Model 100, chambered in .308, Make them explain why I should have to give up my constitutional rights. Make them explain how [insert antigun proposal] is in any way a "compromise."

That's fine, I get that, but let's work on something else that will. The upcoming elections, including the next presidential, are not looking that great from a pro-2nd perspective. We won't know for sure until they actually get here, so we'll see, but I believe we need to go on the offensive while we still have a majority because we don't know for sure what the future holds.

Does that mean trying to fast track legislation, or forcing a SCOTUS ruling, I don't know, as both of those are very difficult and slow processes with many requirements to actually make them happen.

The above two quotes lead me to believe that a little education on how our legal system works may be in order. Might I suggest: Spats McGee’s Federal Constitutional Primer. The process is slow. It just is. Fast tracking legislation might be an option, but I'll suggest that something less ambitious, and yet less conciliatory might be in order. On the federal level, let's remove suppressors from the NFA. At the state level, we could push for an "Interstate Compact on the Carrying of Concealed Weapons." That's now drivers' licenses are recognized from state to state, and I see no reason the states couldn't do it for CCLs.

Forcing a SCOTUS ruling is a gamble. It might work, or it might be a disaster. One of the problems with litigation and SCOTUS is that cases take years to get from filing to get from filing to SCOTUS ruling. In the meantime, laws change (raising claims of mootness), litigants run out of money, litigants die. . . . And when it comes to "positioning the pieces" to get a favorable SCOTUS ruling, there are lots of pieces to consider.

What it has not ruled on are carrying in public for self defense, may issue versus shall issue and the like, and if Caetano v. Massachusetts applies to type of firearm (AR-15, etc.). Why don't we go after this while we hold the SCOTUS majority?

Hell, being from NY and still having family there, I've often toyed with the idea of applying for a non-resident carry license just so I could fight their inevitable "no way in Hell" response, but I don't have the resources to even get the process started. As a lawyer, Spats, can you tell me if that is even possible if the lack of resources wasn't an issue?

Dig around here in Legal and you'll find lots of posts on how lawsuits play out. Is it possible, if money is no object? Sure. See my federal constitutional primer on how those lawsuits go. I've even considered applying for some non-resident permit and making myself a plaintiff as well. There are still a lot of factors that go into deciding whether it's a good idea, though.

 

[entropy]

At the state level, we could push for an "Interstate Compact on the Carrying of Concealed Weapons." That's now [sic] drivers' licenses are recognized from state to state

Except that they're not,at least by Minnesota. I got a DUI in MN in 2000, and when I attempted to get a REAL ID DL in WI in 2015, they told me I could not get one because supposedly I am suspended in MN, and have been since 2000, even though I completed the requirements for re-instatement in MN, and presented them to WI, and was re-instated there immediately. Oddly enough, I was allowed to get the regular WI DL, which I did, but will soon have to deal with this again. So just like MN does not honor my WI CCW, they do not honor my WI DL. SWMBO does the driving when we go to MN.

 

[ilbob]

There are still a lot of factors that go into deciding whether it's a good idea, though.

and no guarantee that by the time it gets to the supreme court they will even agree to hear the case. a potentially worse thing is we win at the appellate level and the other side does not appeal. then it goes no further.

they have already declined to hear what from the outside appeared to be several really good cases that could resolve a lot of issues, one way or the other.

 

[Jim Watson]

By that, I mean that when someone claims that "assault weapons" have to be outlawed, make them explain why that AR chambered in .223 is any deadlier than grandpa's Winchester Model 100, chambered in .308,

This is a common Gun Culture ploy. It might backfire. Explain that a traditional looking blue steel and walnut rifle is as effective as a modern military looking mass of black plastic and you might well get the blue steel and walnut banned, too.

Not that the antis don't intend to eventually, anyhow.

 

[Godfather'sGun]

Well, I really don't think you and I have the same concept of "moving forward," but I'll play. We're not going to get anywhere through appeasement. We've tried that repeatedly (1934, 1968, 1986, and 1994 immediately come to mind).

Don't worry, we have a very similar concept. The only way I would agree to any appeasement is if it was like my plan; addressing the (reasonable) anti's concerns, but giving us unfettered access and carry rights and with protections for the future. That would be the ONLY way I would consider any kind of "compromise." Those "appeasements" you mentioned are by no means anything I agree with.

The above two quotes lead me to believe that a little education on how our legal system works may be in order.

I don't consider myself an expert, especially not to the level of someone with professional teaching and experience such as yourself, but I do know much more than the average citizen. I know it's a long process and "fast tracking" is by no means actually a fast process, even calling it one of the slowest things known to man in my original post. This, along with my suggestion of trying to get a SCOTUS ruling, is solely made based on the fact that we currently do have the majority in congress and the SCOTUS, and while that can obviously change, that chance for change is true at any time. On one hand, we try legislatively, and if it doesn't pass, we lost nothing significant, it's just a failed bill, but if we win, it may only be a win for a while, possibly getting legislated out of existence in the future. On the other hand, we try through the SCOTUS, and if we win, it can/should stand forever, but if we lose, the same is true. However, the current Justices on our side are mostly relatively young/healthy and likely to keep their seats for the foreseeable future, so, while still no guarantee, it may be a good time for a push. Everything is a risk though, so it may be worth not pushing until we have no choice, such as another federal "assault weapon" ban or if national reciprocity fails. I simply want us to consider our options and do more than just fight against proposed restrictions.

Nonetheless, we have to stand our ground. We have to speak up. And we have to make them explain. By that, I mean that when someone claims that "assault weapons" have to be outlawed, make them explain why that AR chambered in .223 is any deadlier than grandpa's Winchester Model 100, chambered in .308, Make them explain why I should have to give up my constitutional rights. Make them explain how [insert antigun proposal] is in any way a "compromise."

Absolutely. I have said many times (not just here) that this is key in convincing moderates to come to our side, even if just enough to not have them push against us. Personally, I'm cautious about using the .223/AR-15 v. .308/hunting rifle comparison for the same reason Jim Watson, above, states. I simply use the fact that .223 is not allowed for hunting in Virginia, my current home state, due to its limited power and being "inhumane" compared to larger calibers and leave the argument at that unless they need more convincing. It seems to have slightly less risk of backfiring against us with those I've used it with so far. However, I don't often get the opportunity to argue our side simply because there are few antis where I live to talk to. What I have proposed is that we get those with the resources, especially those that have their resources because we gave them to them (NRA, etc.), to push our facts and information out to the general public, not simply preaching to the choir as has been done for years. Perhaps we should start a new thread specifically about this topic and drum up some support and ideas to show to those orgs we belong to.
Since we're on the subject of spreading the word to the general public; another thing I'd like mention and get feedback on is the stereotypical image we have in the minds of the public. Being from NY and now in VA, I have seen the comparison personally. To many liberals, and even moderates that only get their info from the MSM, we are "rednecks that won't let go of our bibles or guns." Of course, this is gross stereotyping. I believe it would help us a lot, especially in those strongly liberal areas, to show that we are as diverse as we actually are and that many of us have much in common with them despite our strong belief in 2nd. Efforts in this have been put forth, but it has simply been more preaching to the choir.
Has any of us ever seen an ad, or anything else for that matter, showing good pro-2nd information in any mainstream media? I never have. That needs to change.
Thoughts?


Edit: Spats, I am going to read your constitutional primer, however I'm a bit short on time today, thanks.

 

[G'dale Mike]

I didn’t even read it, sorry, all I need to know is that the founding fathers have no equals in present day politics and I trust none of the current batch of politicians with my God given rights

 

[hdwhit]

Odd Job wrote:
The UK has been through this already and here's what happens:
...
8) The GPs' solution is to charge for this request.

Not under the National Health, they don't.

 

[SharpDog]

but if we find a workable solution, we can force them to either support it, or show their true colors which would help bring more moderates to our side. Find a real and provable solution, take it to the public and show the facts and proof, and they're forced to "put up, or shut up." We don't need everyone, just a majority.

Yeah, no! Ask OZ how it's working for them... the 'Majority ' was in favor of it at the time ...

https://winteryknight.com/2017/10/0...iolent-crime-rates-and-lower-suicide-rates-2/

 

[jrmiddleton425]

As I mentioned above, this new system is forever. It will have to include a clause that it cannot be changed or revoked outside of the specific and narrow ways allowed within.

A logical fallacy, as the process for changing laws remains unchanged.

It becomes essentially a new and improved 2nd amendment.

No, sir. A "new and improved 2nd amendment" would be, the dealer runs your state ID, and if the computer doesn't return "no sales of firearms" NO PURCHASE RESTRICTIONS. Keep the $200 NFA stamp if you want it. But again...ANY PERSON NOT LEGALLY PROHIBITED, CAN PAY THE TAX AND "LIVE-REGISTER" WHATEVER THEY WISH.

I don’t really care if this plan ever sees the light of day. But I absolutely care that the 2nd lives forever...

And the plan you spent several hours or days writing will not accomplish that. Your "plan" does nothing except open the door to arbitrary denials and restrictions. I ask you...EXACTLY WHO gets to decide what "common use" is?

 

[Spats McGee]

Except that they're not,at least by Minnesota. I got a DUI in MN in 2000, and when I attempted to get a REAL ID DL in WI in 2015, they told me I could not get one because supposedly I am suspended in MN, . . . .

A little off-topic, but . . . . Interestingly, but probably annoying for you, is that the interplay here between WI and MN sounds like it actually is part of that recognition I mentioned. Part of the interstate compact is that when any one state suspends a person's DL, it's suspended for all of them. So if I got a ticket in OK and failed to appear for my court date, OK could effectively suspend my AR DL.

This is a common Gun Culture ploy. It might backfire. Explain that a traditional looking blue steel and walnut rifle is as effective as a modern military looking mass of black plastic and you might well get the blue steel and walnut banned, too.

No doubt about that, Jim. It has its risks. I figure our odds improve somewhat if we attempt: (a) to put antis on the defensive; and (b) to educate those who know little about guns. The hardcore antis are coming for all of the guns and they will not be dissuaded. To shamelessly steal a line from The Terminator: "Listen, and understand. The antis are out there. They can’t be bargained with. They can’t be reasoned with. They don't feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And they absolutely will not stop, ever, until you are disarmed." It sounds like an exaggeration, but after 25+ years of watching this debate, I don't think it is.

Well, I really don't think you and I have the same concept of "moving forward," but I'll play. We're not going to get anywhere through appeasement. We've tried that repeatedly (1934, 1968, 1986, and 1994 immediately come to mind).

Don't worry, we have a very similar concept. The only way I would agree to any appeasement is if it was like my plan; addressing the (reasonable) anti's concerns, but giving us unfettered access and carry rights and with protections for the future. That would be the ONLY way I would consider any kind of "compromise." Those "appeasements" you mentioned are by no means anything I agree with.

No, we absolutely do not "have a very similar concept." Your concept involves a very complicated and costly licensing scheme which I believe to be unconstitutional. My concept involves telling the antis to go pound sand into bodily orifices.

And maybe I wasn't particularly clear. I chose the term "appeasement" for a reason. We'll get nowhere through appeasement. Gun control laws have proven ridiculously ineffective, and the RKBA is a fundamental, individual right. I have zero intention of supporting any plan that invites the federal government to meddle in my RKBA any more than it already does.

Statistics on "gun violence" are of limited value to me in this debate. The government may (or may not) care deeply about how many people die. While that is of some importance to me, I'm really more concerned about who dies. Thus, that the antis constantly screech about "X thousand people dying from 'gun violence' in this country" is of little concern in my calculus. How many of those X thousand were drug-dealers caught in gang violence? Which ones were justifiable defensive gun uses? Any claim that I should give up one iota of my RKBA because "X thousand people in this country die every year from gun violence" is tantamount to saying that I should value the life of a convicted rapist who is killed in a drug deal as much as I value the life of my daughter. To be clear: I don't. I have a moral and legal obligation to protect my wife and daughter. I do not have the same obligation to protect complete strangers in faraway cities, much less to protect the lives of criminals: (1) for whom firearm possession is already illegal; (2) who cannot be convicted for failing to have this license you propose (See Haynes and the A5); and (3) who are apparently busy killing other felons and innocent bystanders.

 

[GEM]

It is a mistake to say that ‘we’ have a majority at the SCOTUS on the EBR reasonable restrictions, even with the conservatives, so to speak.

 

[Godfather'sGun]

No, we absolutely do not "have a very similar concept." Your concept involves a very complicated and costly licensing scheme which I believe to be unconstitutional. My concept involves telling the antis to go pound sand into bodily orifices.

Really? You can read my mind? Amazing. I said that because contrary to the conclusion nearly everyone seems to be coming to about me, I agree with you on every point you and others have made. I want the antis to "pound sand into bodily orifices" as well. I want the 2nd to be honored as written. As I've mentioned several times, but don't seem to be able to get through to anyone here, my plan was simply an exercise I took on based on some parameters brought up by others to see if I could come with a plan that satisfied those parameters without simply stripping us of arms, but actually gave us more access than we have now (e.g., getting rid of NFA, onerous state restrictions, etc.). I also said in the original post and several times since, that I am not a lawyer or other such expert and wanted input from others to clarify things I don't have experience with and solve the problems that others have pointed out. I by no means want to actually put my plan in place instead of the freedoms we want/have. It was an exercise. The only way I would actually want it to move anywhere would be if we were forced to consider a license program, not by choice.
I don't know how much more clearly I can explain that my original post was just an exercise, or thought experiment if that makes more sense, I chose to do and wanted input on, not that I want to abolish the 2nd or any other such nonsense. I do NOT want a national license system. I do NOT want a database. IF we are FORCED to implement one, my plan was meant to be an idea of what we might be able to work out (once refined) and keep in our back pocket "just in case." I would love nothing more than for the 2nd to be honored as it is written and left alone forever, but I'm also a realist, and it already is NOT being honored as written and I see the writing on the wall that it could get a lot worse and I don't want to stick my head in the sand and wait for the antis to come up with their own plan that has nothing but infringements. At any moment, though probably not soon with our current majority, a high ranking politician can ask congress to come up with a national license system or some other draconian bill; wouldn't it be better if we had one that WE came up with that we could present? That is all I wanted with this. I don't have a one track mind, I think of many possible situations and like to come up with solutions for them.
I've also asked for thoughts and ideas on other things we could do to improve our stance, but those have been completely ignored because everyone is too fixated on the first post I made, and have mostly ignored every reply I've made since (although you've obviously read and replied to them, you too, have ignored every other aspect of conversation I've tried to have outside of my original plan).

 

[Spats McGee]

No, we absolutely do not "have a very similar concept." Your concept involves a very complicated and costly licensing scheme which I believe to be unconstitutional. My concept involves telling the antis to go pound sand into bodily orifices.

Really? You can read my mind? Amazing.

You might want to slow your roll a little bit. There was no reason for me to try to read your mind, and there's no call for you to get snarky now. You created this thread and its title: "Thoughts on a complete rewrite..." You posted it here in "Activism Discussion and Planning." Did you read the post entitled "Read this before posting in Activism Discussion?" That thread is pretty clear:

This isn't a place for partisan politics, whining, big philosophy or thread drift. Keep focused on constructive ideas to develop real plans to make real change in defending and restoring the Second Amendment.

So AD&P isn't about posting thought exercises. It's about forming concrete goals and the steps required to achieve them.

You posted your concept in excruciating detail. In fact, in Post #1, you said:

... In the past I have toyed with ways to end the debate over the 2nd forever. With this new free time, I have dived deep into it, thinking, researching, and contemplating....

and

...
Our Founding Fathers were geniuses, but their smartest contribution was knowing that no man is an island and there is always someone with better ideas as well as the need to debate those ideas and reform them into a final product. That is what I want this to be… Or I’m just crazy and we throw it out, but hopefully not before getting at least something out of it.

TL; DR version? Nope. This could lead to the greatest change in our country since the Civil War. Read it and add to it. Don’t dismiss it or you may lose your chance to have a say in it. As mentioned, I plan to revise it and eventually bring it to larger and more “powerful” audiences. Even our Revolution and Declaration of Independence was born as a simple idea that grew to greatness.
Our Founding Fathers were geniuses, but their smartest contribution was knowing that no man is an island and there is always someone with better ideas as well as the need to debate those ideas and reform them into a final product. That is what I want this to be… Or I’m just crazy and we throw it out, but hopefully not before getting at least something out of it....

You then presented us with your three-tiered licensing system. I and others have read your posts and have pointed out to you that your plan for "finalizing" (for lack of a better phrase) the Second Amendment is unworkable, unconstitutional, and amounts to little more than the first step towards capitulation. Had you done the requisite legal and historical research (and you did say you'd been researching), you would have seen the problems inherent in your plan.

. . . . As I've mentioned several times, but don't seem to be able to get through to anyone here, my plan was simply an exercise I took on based on some parameters brought up by others to see if I could come with a plan that satisfied those parameters without simply stripping us of arms, but actually gave us more access than we have now (e.g., getting rid of NFA, onerous state restrictions, etc.)....

Unfortunately, GG, you're losing credibility here. I don't believe this was "simply an exercise" for you. You told us that in Post #1:

...I plan to revise it and eventually bring it to larger and more “powerful” audiences....

That's not "an exercise." That's a plan.

...I also said in the original post and several times since, that I am not a lawyer or other such expert and wanted input from others to clarify things I don't have experience with and solve the problems that others have pointed out. I by no means want to actually put my plan in place instead of the freedoms we want/have. It was an exercise. The only way I would actually want it to move anywhere would be if we were forced to consider a license program, not by choice...

See above.

You have gotten expert advice here. Mine. Constitutional law is kind of my thing. I've had a law license for 15 years and spent ~10 years in constitutional litigation. I can't help if you don't like the information I've given you, and I'm too old and cranky to bother trying.

....I've made since (although you've obviously read and replied to them, you too, have ignored every other aspect of conversation I've tried to have outside of my original plan).

I don't think that's quite true. I've mentioned the importance of education. I think (but may be thinking of a different thread) that I mentioned that we need to reclaim the narrative from the media. I pointed you to my constitutional litigation primer. I didn't mean to ignore anything, GG, but you have to admit: your posts are kind of wordy. That makes it easy to accidentally skip over things. What is it you want to discuss?

 

[Frank Ettin]

....As I've mentioned several times, but don't seem to be able to get through to anyone here, my plan was simply an exercise I took on based ...

Perhaps that might suggest to you that there are some very fundamental flaws in your approach here.

...I've also asked for thoughts and ideas on other things we could do to improve our stance, but those have been completely ignored because everyone is too fixated on the first post I made, and have mostly ignored every reply I've made since (although you've obviously read and replied to them, you too, have ignored every other aspect of conversation I've tried to have outside of my original plan).

You've actually gotten considerable feedback here. It's just not, apparently, what you hoped for or expected. But feedback isn't customized to order; it is what it is.

Spats McGee especially has been doing a yeoman's job of trying to bring a healthy dose of reality to the table. On the other hand you say:

....Spats, I am going to read your constitutional primer, however I'm a bit short on time today, thanks.

Perhaps your purposes would be better served spending time trying to educate yourself instead of continuing to pitch a RKBA paradigm which has already been rejected.

 

[Godfather'sGun]

Spats, I didn't mean to come across as snarky, I just thought it was a bit presumptuous of you to say that we "absolutely do not" share similar ideals based on what I've posted in just one thread that, while long, was only on one topic, and I guess my sense of humor in the reply didn't come across right. As for posting it here, I didn't, a mod moved it. I posted it in the general activism forum because after reading the "read first," it was, while not the perfect location, the closest. It was moved to the discussion and planning sub-forum later. There isn't really a good spot to put it here on THR, it didn't seem to fit perfectly anywhere the way the forum is set up.
As for the other points, again I'll reiterate, I wanted advice and input, not just "It won't work," "it's unconstitutional," etc. What needs to be changed to make it work? What needs to be changed to make it constitutional? Once those issues were resolved to everyone's satisfaction, I would take it up the chain, meaning giving it to someone such as the NRA to get more input and to be held on to in case needed. I also assumed it would take quite a while to get to that point and by then, the antis may already have some asinine proposal of their own and we would need one of our own to counter with. As I admitted earlier, I didn't explain that aspect of my plan fully and it has been misconstrued since. I went into detail on THE plan, but not MY plan for it. As I also more or less said earlier, it seems that no one wants to work with it, so I said, let's work on something else. For example, I tossed out the idea of advertising by the NRA in the mainstream, organizing something (maybe a petition?) to ask them to move forward with something like that. I even asked if anyone thought it would be worth starting a new thread for but got no response on that. I also asked if anyone else had some proactive ideas. So far that hasn't amounted much, but I believe that's simply because it goes off topic from my original post and most have been too fixated on it and/or haven't read the follow ups since. The exception of course, is you, Spats. You've answered some of my questions, but I also think you're still misunderstanding some of my comments. Don't get me wrong, I think you mean well, my guess is it may be a combination of unintentional bias caused by my original post (you're still quoting it even though I've tried moving on several times) along with my inability to come across with my ideas and/or comments the way I intend them; that's why I tend to be wordy, I'm trying to prevent misunderstanding, but apparently it's backfiring. It also isn't helping my case that I'm just a shmo and you're a lawyer. I am an intelligent person, but I don't have the experience you do in either the legal aspect, or in articulating my words. Communication is a huge part of your job; mine...not so much.

 

[Odd Job]

Not under the National Health, they don't.

Yes they do. Not all of them, but it's just a matter of time.

See the British Medical Association's stance on it here:

https://www.bma.org.uk/advice/employment/ethics/ethics-a-to-z/firearms

Applicants have reported on the UK forums they have been charged for these GP letters. I wasn't charged by my GP but I have since moved and got a new GP. We'll see what happens when I renew my license in four years time.

I am sympathetic with the GPs' position on this, because these letters don't contribute to the healthcare of the patient and they waste time to produce.

And if they wanted to, they could refuse to provide the letter on ethical grounds or because of a lack of resources.

 

[Spats McGee]

Spats, I didn't mean to come across as snarky, I just thought it was a bit presumptuous of you to say that we "absolutely do not" share similar ideals . . . .

I didn't say anything about ideals. I said we absolutely do not share the same concepts. It's the difference between something that is aspirational in nature ("What do I want?") as opposed to directorial ("How do I get it?").

As for posting it here, I didn't, a mod moved it.

Fair enough. I didn't realize that.

What needs to be changed to make it work?

Answering that is a massive undertaking, and one that gives me pause right off the bat. I question whether I should even begin helping put together a plan with which I so fundamentally disagree. For whatever it's worth, GG, there have been many discussions of national/federal reciprocity laws, and if you'll search my posts, you'll find that I've consistently opposed them. Or at least, I think I've been consistent. I don't want the federal government passing more laws restricting, regulating, or otherwise defining my RKBA. It's done enough damage already.

Aside from that, and just so you know I'm not ignoring you, I'm not even sure where to begin. If there's a particular point that you would like me to address, tell me what it is. (And please try to limit each request to 500 words or less.) I'm not going to go through your whole plan all at once, refining it for you.Your plan, while massive, has probably dozens of unanswered questions, and I haven't even re-read the OP to look for them. Unless and until you answer those questions, I'm not sure I can tell you what would need to be done to make it work. Just working off the top of my head, I can think of the following:

• Generally -- How do you plan to strip the States of their right to regulate weapons? Are you going to try to get a constitutional amendment to strike the 9th and 10th Amendments?
  
• Generally, Tier 1 licensing -- Somewhere in all of your posts, I was left with the impression that the background check system would not be part of either the federal or state systems. How do you plan to establish it? Who's going to fund it?
• Tier 2 licensing -- IIRC, there were to be psychological examinations for this level. Who was going to do these exams? Who's going to judge whether someone's fit to have a Tier 2 license?

I've already told you how I would like to see reciprocity of carry resolved: An Interstate Compact on the Carrying of Concealed Weapons. Here's how that happens: The American Bar Association drafts a set of model laws, and individual states adopt them. That means contacting the ABA and all of our state legislatures.

What needs to be changed to make it constitutional?

That is far easier asked than answered. Questions of constitutionality are: (1) based on far more than just the final legislative draft; and (2) depend in part of why something was done, not just how.

As to #1: There are basically two kinds of constitutional challenges: (a) facial challenges; and (b) as-applied challenges. In the first, the challenger asserts that a given law is unconstitutional "on its face," meaning that everywhere, in all circumstances, the law is unconstitutional. In the second, the challenger claims that "this law, as it applies to me, is unconstitutional."

As to #2: The legislative record can be used to inform a court as to why something was done. I'm working purely from memory here, but if memory serves, the Gun Free School Zones Act was initially stricken as unconstitutional because Congress hadn't sufficiently tied the enactment to the Commerce Clause. What did Congress do? Went back, packed the legislative record, and re-enacted essentially the same law. Now it's constitutional. (Ta-da!)

There are a handful of things that I will call "constitutional difficulties" in your plan. I do not necessarily know that they are unconstitutional, but they certainly cause me some concern, legally speaking. I have already pointed at least some of these before.

1. Stripping the States of their rights. Congress can preempt the field by statute, or you can try to get a constitutional amendment. You can reasonably expect significant pushback from the States on this.
   
2. Limiting future debate. One session of Congress cannot bind future sessions. I'm also pretty sure that any law that would bar debate in the Congress on the Second would violate Article 1 of the Constitution, and the First Amendment.
3. Creation of this non-federal, non-state (NFNS)background check system. I don't even know where to begin on that. Not just the creation issue, but funding (both for startup and operation, staffing, etc.)
4. Creation of the 1J license, whereby the federal gov't (or maybe it's this NFNS thing) presumes to tell me how I should teach my kid about guns and the Constitution.
   
5. Who gets to determine what's in "common use" for purposes of moving certain arms from Tier 2 to Tier 1? And doesn't that movement violate the "no future debate" rule?

For example, I tossed out the idea of advertising by the NRA in the mainstream, organizing something (maybe a petition?) to ask them to move forward with something like that.

The NRA is the 800-lb gorilla of gun laws and lobbying. No doubt about that. I like the idea of some mainstream advertising, but I'm cautious about it. IMHO, the NRA is fairly tone-deaf from time to time.

I also like the idea of a petition, but I'm afraid that petitions are (historically) doomed in this area. Asking millions of gun owners to both admit to being gun owners and writing down our addresses . . . . That will cause many gun owners to shy away. Might I suggest continuing to write to our Senators and Representatives?

You've answered some of my questions, but I also think you're still misunderstanding some of my comments.

I doubt it, but I'll play. Which ones? Be succinct, please.

 

[hso]

This has been interesting, but it isn't going to produce a workable plan since it is based on the ideas that you can make laws static from both a change and interpretation standpoint, that states can be prevented from making interpretations of how federal law is to be implemented or that they can be prevented from being more restrictive in how they regulate, that groups with the intent to remove types of firearms from civilian ownership will accept anything else.

A change to the 2nd would be required to achieve the OP's goal and we've discussed how difficult that is.

 

[jdc1244]

A change to the 2nd would be required to achieve the OP's goal and we've discussed how difficult that is.

‘A change’ in that the Second Amendment would need to be repealed with the 28th Amendment; and the Constitution amended again with the ‘new Second Amendment,’ the 29th Amendment, reflecting the OP’s goal.

Difficult, indeed – approaching impossible.

As the tenth anniversary of DC v. Heller approaches, the disappointment and frustration among many gunowners with the ruling is clearly evident – this thread’s premise is yet another manifestation of that disappointment and frustration.

 

[entropy]

What needs to be changed to make it work? What needs to be changed to make it constitutional?

The answer is the 2nd, 9th and 10th Amendments to the Constitution, which is exactly what certain groups have been working on for about the last 100 years. Needless to say most of us here are opposed to that.

 

[Robert]

Allow me to quote a better closing post than I could write:
This has been interesting, but it isn't going to produce a workable plan since it is based on the ideas that you can make laws static from both a change and interpretation standpoint, that states can be prevented from making interpretations of how federal law is to be implemented or that they can be prevented from being more restrictive in how they regulate, that groups with the intent to remove types of firearms from civilian ownership will accept anything else.

A change to the 2nd would be required to achieve the OP's goal and we've discussed how difficult that is.