"The Path Forward on Guns:" a proposal

[unfitmother]

https://thepathforwardonguns.com/

For the gun control side

1. Swiss-style universal background checks

Yup, the big enchilada. Gun rights people often worry that UBCs will turn into the government tracking (and later confiscating) everybody’s guns, so this system staves off those fears while still making absolutely sure that every gun buyer is checked. It’s modeled closely on Switzerland’s system. Here’s how it works:

Any gun buyer can log into the NICS background check system and enter their personal information. The system gives them an ID number that expires in 1 week. (For reference here is ATF Form 4473, the background check form.)
The buyer can then buy firearms from any legal seller. They have to meet face-to-face, and the buyer shows the ID number. The seller checks that number in the NICS system, and the system returns just one word: “approved” or “denied”. In the former case, the seller then confirms the buyer’s identity using a government-issued ID, and they can proceed with the sale.
The system doesn’t collect any information at all on the items being sold/transferred (type, make, model, quantity, etc.) — its only job is to run a comprehensive check on whether the buyer is legally allowed to purchase firearms. After one week, when the one-time-use ID number expires, the system doesn’t retain any records. (That information is already archived for 20 years on the Form 4473 for all gun shop sales, and that would stay the same.) The system collects no information about the seller, as it’s designed to work perfectly without knowing the seller’s identity.
Transfers between family members are exempt. Non-commercial firearm loans of up to 14 days are also exempt — this is just to accommodate a situation where, say, two people are on a backcountry hunting trip and one needs to lend the other a gun during the trip. They need some way to do that without committing a felony.

2. Extreme risk protection orders

These laws allow a government to temporarily seize weapons from people who a court finds are plotting a violent act. They can be prone to abuse if written in an overly broad way, but well-written ERPOs would likely have prevented many of the horrible mass shootings we’ve seen. Congress doesn’t have the power to create federal ERPOs, but it can and should pass a law that incentivizes states to create their own ERPOs. The columnist David French wrote an excellent outline of what a good ERPO law looks like:

It should limit those who have standing to seek the order to a narrowly defined class of people (close relatives, those living with the respondent);
It should require petitioners to come forward with clear, convincing, admissible evidence that the respondent is a significant danger to himself or others;
It should grant the respondent an opportunity to contest the claims against him;
In the event of an emergency, ex parte order (an order granted before the respondent can contest the claims), a full hearing should be scheduled quickly — preferably within 72 hours; and
The order should lapse after a defined period of time unless petitioners can come forward with clear and convincing evidence that it should remain in place.

ERPOs cover a gap that our mental health system does not. The reality is that our focus on “mental health” does two catastrophic things:

It shames and stigmatizes people with psychiatric diseases, which makes them less likely to seek the very treatment they need.
It doesn’t even address the problem. Very few people with mental illness will ever become violent, and most mass shooters don’t actually have any diagnosable mental illness. But most would-be killers do throw up exactly the kinds of red flags that an ERPO system will catch.

3. Classify bump stocks as machine guns

The purchase of new machine guns has been banned in the US since May 1986. The way the law defines “machine gun” is very specific, and it doesn’t cover bump stocks. Therefore bump stocks can’t legally be banned by executive action or by the ATF. Congress will have to pass a law that classifies bump stocks as machine guns.

[jdege]

How many of you folks who occasionally make a private sale will only sell to people who can show a permit to carry or permit to purchase?

The few times I've made a private sale of a firearm, I made that condition of sale.

Every time I've made a private purchase of a firearm, the seller made that a condition of sale.

I don't want to sell to criminals, and I understand fully when a seller has the same concern.

So I'd not object to a form of "universal background checks" that worked as described - because that's what I already do. And it's what, from my experience, most MN gun owners already do.

But I'd be very surprised if such a measure gained any traction. It's been offered before, and gotten nowhere - because the gun grabbers care more about creating a paper trail for every transfer than they do about the background check itself.

[Holland&Holland]

I have never lived in Switzerland so can't comment on how their system work, however before stating that we would agree to a UBC system, can someone actually produce any evidence that under our existing system the private sales are an issue? The last 3 big shootings all purchased them legally at gun stores correct?

[BigBlue]

How many of you folks who occasionally make a private sale will only sell to people who can show a permit to carry or permit to purchase?

The few times I've made a private sale of a firearm, I made that condition of sale.

Every time I've made a private purchase of a firearm, the seller made that a condition of sale.

I don't want to sell to criminals, and I understand fully when a seller has the same concern.

So I'd not object to a form of "universal background checks" that worked as described - because that's what I already do. And it's what, from my experience, most MN gun owners already do.

But I'd be very surprised if such a measure gained any traction. It's been offered before, and gotten nowhere - because the gun grabbers care more about creating a paper trail for every transfer than they do about the background check itself.

That's because what you describe works in an environment where honesty and integrity is assumed. You offer to sell something, he offers to buy it, he shows you what you want to see, sale is completed. Everyone is happy. Nothing further happens unless the buyer uses the gun in a crime. But once you make such transfer actions a 'law' and require them to happen then you move to an assumption of dishonesty and lack of integrity and the law will demand proof and confirmation (the state always assumes bad and requires positive validation that bad didn't happen). So now everyone is bad unless there is a paper trail proving they are not bad. And therein lies the difference. Making it a law will require a paper trail and we all know why paper trails are bad in the bigger picture.

BB

[Holland&Holland]

How many of you folks who occasionally make a private sale will only sell to people who can show a permit to carry or permit to purchase?

The few times I've made a private sale of a firearm, I made that condition of sale.

Every time I've made a private purchase of a firearm, the seller made that a condition of sale.

I don't want to sell to criminals, and I understand fully when a seller has the same concern.

So I'd not object to a form of "universal background checks" that worked as described - because that's what I already do. And it's what, from my experience, most MN gun owners already do.

But I'd be very surprised if such a measure gained any traction. It's been offered before, and gotten nowhere - because the gun grabbers care more about creating a paper trail for every transfer than they do about the background check itself.

That's because what you describe works in an environment where honesty and integrity is assumed. You offer to sell something, he offers to buy it, he shows you what you want to see, sale is completed. Everyone is happy. Nothing further happens unless the buyer uses the gun in a crime. But once you make such transfer actions a 'law' and require them to happen then you move to an assumption of dishonesty and lack of integrity and the law will demand proof and confirmation (the state always assumes bad and requires positive validation that bad didn't happen). So now everyone is bad unless there is a paper trail proving they are not bad. And therein lies the difference. Making it a law will require a paper trail and we all know why paper trails are bad in the bigger picture.

BB

Not to mention there then is created a potential liability where any negligence that could questioned could be pursued through criminal and civil courts. I.E. the seller checked the number but did not realize it was a fake ID that was shown to him. It was an obvious fake your honor, anyone should have realized this, the seller had a responsibility your honor, he failed and now he must pay for my clients pain and suffering.

[Scratch]

That sounds reasonable to me...

[unfitmother]

Making it a law will require a paper trail and we all know why paper trails are bad in the bigger picture.

Thanks, I hadn't considered that. It's not clear if it's just setting up that kind of system, or also making it a crime not to use the system (though that would be a safe assumption).

I'll check into how they handle that in Switzerland and report back...

[jdege]

That's because what you describe works in an environment where honesty and integrity is assumed. You offer to sell something, he offers to buy it, he shows you what you want to see, sale is completed. Everyone is happy. Nothing further happens unless the buyer uses the gun in a crime. But once you make such transfer actions a 'law' and require them to happen then you move to an assumption of dishonesty and lack of integrity and the law will demand proof and confirmation (the state always assumes bad and requires positive validation that bad didn't happen). So now everyone is bad unless there is a paper trail proving they are not bad. And therein lies the difference. Making it a law will require a paper trail and we all know why paper trails are bad in the bigger picture.

The proposal was specifically designed to prevent the creation of a paper trail, which is why the proposal will go nowhere.

The lack of a paper trail is a sine qua non for my support - but the existence of a paper trail is a sine qua non for the gun grabbers.

If there's a paper trail of any sort, then the simple act of possessing a firearm becomes a criminal act for which the government not having screwed up its paperwork becomes an affirmative defense.

That's not something I'd ever be willing to accept.

And the gun grabbers will accept nothing less.

[unfitmother]

I have no idea what Swiss system the original proposal references... I don't read German, so it was hard for me to find any relevant statutes. I give up for now, but below is the closest I came.

https://translate.google.com/translate? ... edit-text=

[EDIT: this is about buying from a dealer]

Art. 11 Written contract

1 A written contract must be concluded for each transfer of a weapon or a substantial part of a weapon without a firearms license (Art. 10). Each contracting party must keep the contract for at least ten years.

2 The contract must contain the following information:
a. Surname, first name, date of birth, home address and signature of the person transmitting the weapon or the essential part of the weapon;
b. Name, first name, date of birth, home address and signature of the person who acquires the weapon or the essential part of the weapon;
c. Weapon type, manufacturer or manufacturer, name, caliber, weapon number and date and place of transfer;
d. The type and number of the official ID card of the person who acquires the weapon or the essential component of the weapon;
e. a reference to the processing of personal data in connection with the contract in accordance with the data protection provisions of the Federation or the cantons, provided that firearms are transferred.

3 Anyone who transfers a firearm in accordance with Article 10 paragraphs 1 and 3 5 must provide the registration office (Article 31 b ) with a copy of the contract within 30 days of conclusion of the contract. The cantons may provide for further suitable forms of notification.

EDIT continueed: This is better info
https://www.loc.gov/law/help/firearms-c ... erland.php

The acquisition license is required only if a weapon is acquired from a dealer. No license is required for transactions between private individuals. Instead, these are permitted as long as the seller verifies the identity and age of the buyer by checking an official identification document and as long as he has no reason to believe that the buyer has been or should be disqualified from gun ownership. The buyer may ascertain these circumstances by requesting information from the cantonal authorities, but only if the buyer consents in writing.

Again, I still have no idea what system the original proposal is based on, so it's still unclear to me if there is any kind of paper trail or not...

[BigBlue]

I have never lived in Switzerland so can't comment on how their system work, however before stating that we would agree to a UBC system, can someone actually produce any evidence that under our existing system the private sales are an issue? The last 3 big shootings all purchased them legally at gun stores correct?

Don't be bringing your facts to the party... Ugh.



Which highlights the reality that the push for gun control is not at all about effecting outcomes, it is about a change in society that will eventually aid a change in other types of rules, laws, and governing. The gun control folks running the show enlist the emotional crowd to get their backing but the goals for each part are widely separate. And it really is remarkable how well they have managed to sell their 'story' and enlist the support they have without those folks knowing what is going on (or not caring).

BB

[BigBlue]

EDIT continueed: This is better info
https://www.loc.gov/law/help/firearms-c ... erland.php

The acquisition license is required only if a weapon is acquired from a dealer. No license is required for transactions between private individuals. Instead, these are permitted as long as the seller verifies the identity and age of the buyer by checking an official identification document and as long as he has no reason to believe that the buyer has been or should be disqualified from gun ownership. The buyer may ascertain these circumstances by requesting information from the cantonal authorities, but only if the buyer consents in writing.

Again, I still have no idea what system the original proposal is based on, so it's still unclear to me if there is any kind of paper trail or not...

Well, sure, that would be easy to live with. We already do it via self-imposed rational procedures. If that would satisfy the antis I'd go for it. But it won't. Even if they accepted it they would then come back to the apple for another bite later because the 'goals' of reduced violence were not met. Which, of course they aren't, because it was never the law-abiding folks committing the violence in the first place.

[unfitmother]

BB, I think you're missing one of the intentions of the proposal: it's not written for gun-control advocates.

The gun debate: 5% gun nuts, 5% gun controllers, and 300 million people who just want to move forward.

The other [5%] isn’t powerful enough to pass their laws, but they are powerful enough to stop [the other 5%] from passing theirs. So if we accept the truth, that they will never agree, we have to ask a new question: how can we move forward even while everybody still disagrees? How can we write a law that neither side wants to block?

If you haven't already, read the whole website I linked in the OP. If after that you still don't trust the proposal's intentions, then let's talk about why you don't, instead of beating the dead horse about "not one inch."

[yukonjasper]

That is the correct way to think about it. Thank you for stating it that way.

The Anti Movement wants to set up the dynamic that forces all guns to be accounted for. The only reason for that is to enter into the world of progressively more restrictive laws that will be able to tell you how many, of what kind and if you should own at all - the next step in "reasonable".

If the discussion remains focused on gun ownership and not Human Behavior, the small percentage of individuals who abuse the right are setting the bar for the vast vast vast majority who have never and will never have an issue.

The "if we can save just one ___________, it's worth it" mentality is the tactic that gets applied. But it only gets applied to situations that don't agree with the Progressive agenda. If they are intellectually honest, they would not allow people to drive until they are 25 years old as the statistics show that the highest percentage of accidents happen to people in that age group.

If you look at history and the number of speeches given by dictators that have inspired violence in one form or another, much greater loss of life than we see with mass shootings, why isn't there outcry to control the First Amendment - oh that's right, that is what the Second Amendment is for - protecting the First Amendment and protecting against abuses of the all of the Amendments. A citizen unable to resist the tyranny of its government becomes a subject.

[Lumpy]

I have never lived in Switzerland so can't comment on how their system work, however before stating that we would agree to a UBC system, can someone actually produce any evidence that under our existing system the private sales are an issue? The last 3 big shootings all purchased them legally at gun stores correct?

Switzerland very tightly regulates the sale and possession of firearms, but with one huge difference: The Swiss want everyone to own a gun, and so have a system that enables that while striving to prevent the misuse of guns as much as possible. This is acceptable because everyone's confident that it is NOT a slow-motion ban. American gun control advocates want for no one to have a gun, and see regulation as the first step towards that goal.

Ever since the 1830's when the states pretty much abandoned serious attempts to train the entire citizenry in arms, the government's attitude towards the armed citizenry has been one of "malign neglect". It would improve safety and go a long way towards silencing the critics of gun ownership if we had some minimal provision for instructing and training those who choose to possess guns. I for one would gladly accept Swiss-level regulation in exchange for Swiss-level commitment to an armed citizenry.

[Ghost]

How do you classify bump stocks as machine guns and ban them at the same time? Machine guns are not banned.