Compromise: Trade Universal Checks for Serial Numbers

[xd ED]

"We cannot negotiate with those who say, 'What's mine is mine, and what's yours is negotiable.'"

-- John F. Kennedy, Address to the American People, 25 JUL 1961

Most people tend to substitute the word 'compromise' for the first 'negotiate' in that quote, and it does tend to fit the current circumstances.

Once again the anti-gun people are starting to trot out the tired and hackneyed meme of "compromise" in the "national gun conversation".

One of the more highly linked of my posts is the one about the "Gun Rights Cake" analogy, which I will now re-post and expand a bit:

I hear a lot about "compromise" from the gun-control camp ... except, it's not compromise.

Allow me to illustrate:

Let's say I have this cake. It is a very nice cake, with "GUN RIGHTS" written across the top in lovely floral icing. Along you come and say, "Give me that cake."

I say, "No, it's my cake."

You say, "Let's compromise. Give me half." I respond by asking what I get out of this compromise, and you reply that I get to keep half of my cake.

Okay, we compromise. Let us call this compromise The National Firearms Act of 1934.

This leaves me with half of my cake and there I am, enjoying my cake when you walk back up and say, "Give me that cake."

I say -- again: "No, it's my cake."

You say, "Let's compromise." What do I get out of this compromise? Why, I get to keep half of what's left of the cake I already own.

So, we compromise -- let us call this one the Gun Control Act of 1968 -- and this time I'm left holding what is now just a quarter of my cake.

And I'm sitting in the corner with my quarter piece of cake, and here you come again. You want my cake. Again.

This time you take several bites -- we'll call this compromise the Clinton Executive Orders -- and I'm left with about a tenth of what has always been MY DAMN CAKE and you've got nine-tenths of it.

Let me restate that: I started out with MY CAKE and you have already 'compromised' me out of ninety percent of MY CAKE ...

... and here you come again. Compromise! ... Lautenberg Act (nibble, nibble). Compromise! ... The HUD/Smith and Wesson agreement (nibble, nibble). Compromise! ... The Brady Law (NOM NOM NOM). Compromise! ... The School Safety and Law Enforcement Improvement Act (sweet tap-dancing Freyja, my finger!)

After every one of these "compromises" -- in which I lose rights and you lose NOTHING -- I'm left holding crumbs of what was once a large and satisfying cake, and you're standing there with most of MY CAKE, making anime eyes and whining about being "reasonable", and wondering "why we won't compromise" as you try for the rest of my cake.

In 1933 I -- or any other American -- could buy a fully-automatic Thompson sub-machine gun, a 20mm anti-tank gun, or shorten the barrel of any gun I owned to any length I thought fit, silence any gun I owned, and a host of other things.

Come your "compromise" in 1934, and suddenly I can't buy a sub-machine gun, a silencer, or a Short-Barreled Firearm without .Gov permission and paying a hefty tax. What the hell did y'all lose in this "compromise"?

In 1967 I, or any other American, could buy or sell firearms anywhere we felt like it, in any State we felt like, with no restrictions. We "compromised" in 1968, and suddenly I've got to have a Federal Firearms License to have a business involving firearms, and there's whole bunch of rules limiting what, where and how I buy or sell guns.

In 1968, "sporting purpose" -- a term found NOT ANY DAMNED WHERE IN THE CONSTITUTION, TO SAY NOTHING OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT -- suddenly became a legal reason to prevent the importation of guns that had been freely imported in 1967.

Tell me, do -- exactly what the hell did you lose in this 1968 "compromise"?

The Lautenberg Act was a "compromise" which suddenly deprived Americans of a Constitutional Right for being accused or convicted of a misdemeanor -- a bloody MISDEMEANOR! What did your side lose in this "compromise"?

I could go on and on, but the plain and simple truth of the matter is that a genuine "compromise" means that both sides give up something. My side of the discussion has been giving, giving, and giving yet more -- and your side has been taking, taking, and now wants to take more.

For you, "compromise" means you'll take half of my cake now, and the other half of my cake next time. Always has been, always will be.

I've got news for you: That is not "compromise".

I'm done with being reasonable, and I'm done with "compromise". Nothing about gun control in this country has ever been "reasonable" nor a genuine "compromise", and I have flat had enough.

LawDog

The Law Dog Files

[XDM45]

"We cannot negotiate with those who say, 'What's mine is mine, and what's yours is negotiable.'"

-- John F. Kennedy, Address to the American People, 25 JUL 1961

Most people tend to substitute the word 'compromise' for the first 'negotiate' in that quote, and it does tend to fit the current circumstances.

Once again the anti-gun people are starting to trot out the tired and hackneyed meme of "compromise" in the "national gun conversation".

One of the more highly linked of my posts is the one about the "Gun Rights Cake" analogy, which I will now re-post and expand a bit:

I hear a lot about "compromise" from the gun-control camp ... except, it's not compromise.

Allow me to illustrate:

Let's say I have this cake. It is a very nice cake, with "GUN RIGHTS" written across the top in lovely floral icing. Along you come and say, "Give me that cake."

I say, "No, it's my cake."

You say, "Let's compromise. Give me half." I respond by asking what I get out of this compromise, and you reply that I get to keep half of my cake.

Okay, we compromise. Let us call this compromise The National Firearms Act of 1934.

This leaves me with half of my cake and there I am, enjoying my cake when you walk back up and say, "Give me that cake."

I say -- again: "No, it's my cake."

You say, "Let's compromise." What do I get out of this compromise? Why, I get to keep half of what's left of the cake I already own.

So, we compromise -- let us call this one the Gun Control Act of 1968 -- and this time I'm left holding what is now just a quarter of my cake.

And I'm sitting in the corner with my quarter piece of cake, and here you come again. You want my cake. Again.

This time you take several bites -- we'll call this compromise the Clinton Executive Orders -- and I'm left with about a tenth of what has always been MY DAMN CAKE and you've got nine-tenths of it.

Let me restate that: I started out with MY CAKE and you have already 'compromised' me out of ninety percent of MY CAKE ...

... and here you come again. Compromise! ... Lautenberg Act (nibble, nibble). Compromise! ... The HUD/Smith and Wesson agreement (nibble, nibble). Compromise! ... The Brady Law (NOM NOM NOM). Compromise! ... The School Safety and Law Enforcement Improvement Act (sweet tap-dancing Freyja, my finger!)

After every one of these "compromises" -- in which I lose rights and you lose NOTHING -- I'm left holding crumbs of what was once a large and satisfying cake, and you're standing there with most of MY CAKE, making anime eyes and whining about being "reasonable", and wondering "why we won't compromise" as you try for the rest of my cake.

In 1933 I -- or any other American -- could buy a fully-automatic Thompson sub-machine gun, a 20mm anti-tank gun, or shorten the barrel of any gun I owned to any length I thought fit, silence any gun I owned, and a host of other things.

Come your "compromise" in 1934, and suddenly I can't buy a sub-machine gun, a silencer, or a Short-Barreled Firearm without .Gov permission and paying a hefty tax. What the hell did y'all lose in this "compromise"?

In 1967 I, or any other American, could buy or sell firearms anywhere we felt like it, in any State we felt like, with no restrictions. We "compromised" in 1968, and suddenly I've got to have a Federal Firearms License to have a business involving firearms, and there's whole bunch of rules limiting what, where and how I buy or sell guns.

In 1968, "sporting purpose" -- a term found NOT ANY DAMNED WHERE IN THE CONSTITUTION, TO SAY NOTHING OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT -- suddenly became a legal reason to prevent the importation of guns that had been freely imported in 1967.

Tell me, do -- exactly what the hell did you lose in this 1968 "compromise"?

The Lautenberg Act was a "compromise" which suddenly deprived Americans of a Constitutional Right for being accused or convicted of a misdemeanor -- a bloody MISDEMEANOR! What did your side lose in this "compromise"?

I could go on and on, but the plain and simple truth of the matter is that a genuine "compromise" means that both sides give up something. My side of the discussion has been giving, giving, and giving yet more -- and your side has been taking, taking, and now wants to take more.

For you, "compromise" means you'll take half of my cake now, and the other half of my cake next time. Always has been, always will be.

I've got news for you: That is not "compromise".

I'm done with being reasonable, and I'm done with "compromise". Nothing about gun control in this country has ever been "reasonable" nor a genuine "compromise", and I have flat had enough.

LawDog

The Law Dog Files

Good post and good point.

[akodo]

here's my compromise

#1 - states and institutions can be held monetarily liable if they do NOT submit lists of felons and the mentally ill in a timely fashion (monthly) to the NICS...and then someone who should have been given a denial passes a check and gets a gun.
#2 - NICS will be improved to deliver the yes or no within 30 minutes. All checks coming in from an FFL dealer with a 'no' result will trigger an alert going to law enforcement
#3 - if, in 5 years, the number of 'no' responses generated by FFL checks doesn't result in at least 10% of these prohibited people being successfully prosecuted the entire system is junked
#4 - Set up an NICS access portal that can be used by an average citizen with a smartphone. The citizen calls in, hands the phone to the potential buyer who enters in his personal info, the phone is then handed back and the seller gets a yes or no response plus a 20 string alphanumeric which he can record as proof of running the check
#5 - universal background checks will be instituted but what is legal to impose on one right is legal to impose on all rights. This same universal background check will be used for ALL gun purchases and ALL government elections. If it is deemed too much of a hassle and too much of a burden for the average voter to have to put up with, then it is also too much of a hassle and burden for the average gun buyer to put up with.

[xd ED]

here's my compromise

#1 - states and institutions can be held monetarily liable if they do NOT submit lists of felons and the mentally ill in a timely fashion (monthly) to the NICS...and then someone who should have been given a denial passes a check and gets a gun.
#2 - NICS will be improved to deliver the yes or no within 30 minutes. All checks coming in from an FFL dealer with a 'no' result will trigger an alert going to law enforcement
#3 - if, in 5 years, the number of 'no' responses generated by FFL checks doesn't result in at least 10% of these prohibited people being successfully prosecuted the entire system is junked
#4 - Set up an NICS access portal that can be used by an average citizen with a smartphone. The citizen calls in, hands the phone to the potential buyer who enters in his personal info, the phone is then handed back and the seller gets a yes or no response plus a 20 string alphanumeric which he can record as proof of running the check
#5 - universal background checks will be instituted but what is legal to impose on one right is legal to impose on all rights. This same universal background check will be used for ALL gun purchases and ALL government elections. If it is deemed too much of a hassle and too much of a burden for the average voter to have to put up with, then it is also too much of a hassle and burden for the average gun buyer to put up with.

#1 Sovereign Immunity
#2 I've never taken more than 5 minutes for myself An alert to law enforcement stating what? ... you have a name such as Joan Dillinger, or Lee Henry Oswald???
#3 Prosecuted for what?
#4 Step One of Registration, which is step one of confiscation
#5 Good Luck with that

[akodo]

here's my compromise

#1 - states and institutions can be held monetarily liable if they do NOT submit lists of felons and the mentally ill in a timely fashion (monthly) to the NICS...and then someone who should have been given a denial passes a check and gets a gun.
#2 - NICS will be improved to deliver the yes or no within 30 minutes. All checks coming in from an FFL dealer with a 'no' result will trigger an alert going to law enforcement
#3 - if, in 5 years, the number of 'no' responses generated by FFL checks doesn't result in at least 10% of these prohibited people being successfully prosecuted the entire system is junked
#4 - Set up an NICS access portal that can be used by an average citizen with a smartphone. The citizen calls in, hands the phone to the potential buyer who enters in his personal info, the phone is then handed back and the seller gets a yes or no response plus a 20 string alphanumeric which he can record as proof of running the check
#5 - universal background checks will be instituted but what is legal to impose on one right is legal to impose on all rights. This same universal background check will be used for ALL gun purchases and ALL government elections. If it is deemed too much of a hassle and too much of a burden for the average voter to have to put up with, then it is also too much of a hassle and burden for the average gun buyer to put up with.

#1 Sovereign Immunity
#2 I've never taken more than 5 minutes for myself An alert to law enforcement stating what? ... you have a name such as Joan Dillinger, or Lee Henry Oswald???
#3 Prosecuted for what?
#4 Step One of Registration, which is step one of confiscation
#5 Good Luck with that

I'll take these in reverse order

#5 - that's the exact purpose - propose instant checks for guns and voting at the same time precisely so that there is a bright line drawn to the idea of having to PROVE you can exercise a right. It's meant to fail.

#4 - no registration involved. The alphanumeric identifier is just something you can choose to keep or throw away. The only data needed to be retained by the system would be the date and time at which that code was given. It's more for seller piece of mind, because #5 is unlikely to ever come into play. As I understand it, it is already illegal for instant background check information to be retained, it is all supposed to be purged.

#3 - prosecution for felon attempting to acquire a firearm, or revocation of parole for a parollee who is trying to buy a gun. I am not sure if it is currently a crime but I am fine with a law making those with enough mental health problems that they need to be barred from owning a gun to actually face a penalty if they attempt to get one. Again, the idea is that NICS should NOT be sending back 'false positives'. If someone is barred by law from having a gun and they try and get one, that is against the law and they should be prosecuted.

#2 + 3. I don't take long myself either, but I have a unique last name. I have seen law abiding people take a long time to get a pass. There is no reason a Joan Dillinger or Leo Harvey Oswald should be getting NO from the NICS. With modern computers we have a ton more processing power than when NICS first came on line. If most of the NICS rejections are due to 'too similar names' then we need to scrap the system, but honestly the system SHOULD be able to look full name, place of birth, and possibly part of a person's SSN and know that this John Michael Winters is not the same John Michael Winters who held up a liquor store 10 years ago.

That is, I am assuming you are FOR having a felon who tries to get a gun or a guy on parole who tries to get a gun face legal consequences because of those actions.

#1 would just need to be enacted on state level for each state, or do something similar to the Tucker Act. Besides, I am not a lawyer but I do believe the whole Sovereign Immunity means a state cannot be dragged into a federal court, not that a state can act with zero risk of ever being sued.

[FJ540]

Here's another idea for compromise: Stop taking away my gun rights or I'll come up with a drop-in full auto fire control kit to make every neutered AR15 BCG giggle without needing any visible modifications and do my best to ensure everyone who wants one gets it. How about that?

Hypothetically speaking of course.