"The Path Forward on Guns:" a proposal

[BigBlue]

OK, so I read it.

First, the initial premise is hard to agree with. I don't believe there are 5% of the population that are 'gun nuts'. I'd say that is lower, but the quantity of folks committed to avoiding more gun control is higher than 5%. They just aren't 'nuts'. I don't feel I warrant being called a 'nut' in any fashion but I stand staunchly against more gun control. The 5% 'gun controllers' is probably closer to the number that really want to affect guns (versus just avoiding violence), so that's better, but I think that is higher too. But anywhoo...

As a reasonable and rational person if I read that and the topic was anything except guns I would find it logical and to be a good compromise and I'd say "Go for it!". I have nothing specific against any of the provisions if they were implemented as described in the details AND if that stuff were set in stone and locked it for the rest of time with no possibility of more changes. Therein lies my opposition. Nothing related to law is ever locked in forever. Since I know that the people who are pushing gun control (the 5% or whatever running the plan) have a different end game I believe that this would just be one step in their direction and very quickly they would be back because of the stark truth that these things would do zero to prevent gun violence and mass killings. My point is that even if 'everyone' agreed and this stuff was passed it would never end the push for more. The 5% puppet masters and the other 45% that nod in agreement with them will always be unhappy with this. But if you find some way to make it the last possible word on the subject and I'd go for it. That solution escapes me though.

As I've continued to state elsewhere, the problem is people and society and that's where we need to put our energy. Instead of this type of compromise I'd ask those looking to 'end this debate' to change the conversation to the people/behavior problem. Then we'd get near universal buy-in because it's hard to argue against "if the person didn't want to kill we wouldn't have this violence problem".

BB

[Rip Van Winkle]

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.

No it wouldn't. The NRA was established in 1871 to do what your asking, and is the most demonized and hated organization in the anti's world.

[unfitmother]

BB, I don't disagree with anything you just said.

It's the eternal optimist in me that is indulging in this idea. I don't think this guy is the first person to propose something like this, so I don't think it'll come close to becoming passable legislation. But, maaaaaaaaannnn, it would be so refreshing if something like this changed the dialogue at a national level.



I look to Britain as a case-study in "not one inch." Gun-grabbers successfully divided recreational gun-owners from self-defense gun owners, and the rest was history (gross over simplification, duh). My litmus test for any "solution to gun violence" is: will it divide gun-owners in any way? If "Yes," then I refuse to acknowledge any logical points to the proposal and do what I can to delegitimize it. If I can't imagine a way for it to divide gun-owners, then I'm all ears.

I didn't see any immediate way this guy's proposal could divide us, so I posted it up here. On further examination, the "red flag laws" part of the proposal seems the trickiest part to get passed with clear instructions to prevent abuse by .gov, but I still don't think it's divisive. I also think that proposing the end of restrictions on suppressors and SBR/SBS is a great offensive argument. Heck, I think that could bring all gun owners closer together, and would entice even more people to take up the addiction hobby.

[Holland&Holland]

BB, I don't disagree with anything you just said.

It's the eternal optimist in me that is indulging in this idea. I don't think this guy is the first person to propose something like this, so I don't think it'll come close to becoming passable legislation. But, maaaaaaaaannnn, it would be so refreshing if something like this changed the dialogue at a national level.



I look to Britain as a case-study in "not one inch." Gun-grabbers successfully divided recreational gun-owners from self-defense gun owners, and the rest was history (gross over simplification, duh). My litmus test for any "solution to gun violence" is: will it divide gun-owners in any way? If "Yes," then I refuse to acknowledge any logical points to the proposal and do what I can to delegitimize it. If I can't imagine a way for it to divide gun-owners, then I'm all ears.

I didn't see any immediate way this guy's proposal could divide us, so I posted it up here. On further examination, the "red flag laws" part of the proposal seems the trickiest part to get passed with clear instructions to prevent abuse by .gov, but I still don't think it's divisive. I also think that proposing the end of restrictions on suppressors and SBR/SBS is a great offensive argument. Heck, I think that could bring all gun owners closer together, and would entice even more people to take up the addiction hobby.

Sorry, it's not optimism, it's naivety.

[unfitmother]

naïve
adjective
1.
having or showing unaffected simplicity of nature or absence of artificiality; unsophisticated; ingenuous.

2.
having or showing a lack of experience, judgment, or information; credulous:

Oh, you're an authority on complexity, sophistication, experience, and being informed? I just took you off my ignore list last week, so call me naive on the subject of your contributions to this site.

[Holland&Holland]

naïve
adjective
1.
having or showing unaffected simplicity of nature or absence of artificiality; unsophisticated; ingenuous.

2.
having or showing a lack of experience, judgment, or information; credulous:

Oh, you're an authority on complexity, sophistication, experience, and being informed? I just took you off my ignore list last week, so call me naive on the subject of your contributions to this site.

You state that as if you think I care if you have me on your ignore list.

That is not a feature I use. You see that way I can read all the posts so I can stay complex, sophisticated, experienced, and informed.

For someone who purports to be looking for compromise, I would think you would want all points of view.

[andrewP]

If UBCs could be implemented in the way this proposal describes, I'd be all for them. It would be a good safeguard against the transfer of firearms into the hands of prohibited persons, and, at least as written, wouldn't cause any paper trail/registration/future confiscation worries. Implementing protective orders such that they aren't a really ugly abuse opportunity, on the other hand, would be VERY difficult. If it could be done, it would be a worthy goal, but I'd want the legal language to be drawn up by some REALLY smart lawyers whose explicit goal was the prevention of abuse of the law. Even then, it might not be possible; anything with the words "ex parte" in it is scary...

As far as the bump stock thing goes, I couldn't possibly care less about bump stocks (they're stupid, and pretty close to useless), except in terms of the idea that all of the proposals to ban them have used language that was FAR too vague to do so without creating worries about "collateral damage" bans of things like improved triggers from companies like Geissele. If we could somehow guarantee that the bump stock language was so narrowly defined as to not ban *anything* else, I wouldn't have a problem with that part.

Everything on the "gun rights" side of that diagram and everything on the "for everybody" side, I pretty much love. This proposal is definitely not perfect, but it's absolutely a reasonable place to start a constructive conversation. Of course, even if the issues of careful, narrow wording were to be worked out, the whole thing would be contingent on being able to trust congresspeople and senators not to screw it up, and, as others have said, no law is immutable over time, so fat chance...

[linksep]

For the gun confiscation side:
1) YOU ARE A MORON!
2) The school system has failed you by not giving you the tools to think critically.
3) You are a (gun) racist - scared of them because they are black.

For the Pro 2A side:
1) Repeal the NFA entirely
2) A gun is a gun is a gun. No distinction between single shot, semi-auto, burst, or full auto. No distinctions of barrel length or overall length. Either you can own guns or you can't.
3) NICS fast-lane like MN PTC=PTP, receive a card that is valid for at least a year that says you're good-to-go, no check or paperwork needed, dealer simply records card number in their book, no 4473 or phone call or internet check.

[BigBlue]

The further you look into some of these ideas, such as the 'red flag' thing, the more risk there is for good, law-abiding folks. Even if there was a real, valid reason to take someone's guns away temporarily due to risk, there would have to be adequate protections in the law & procedure to protect them and their property. There would have to be a facility to immediately return all the confiscated property upon reversal of the order or if/when the risk goes away. No police organization is going to release someone's guns quickly after such an accusation. And then you have the problems of storing the guns carefully and preserving their value. ANY time I have seen police confiscate guns they basically just dump them in a pile (ever see a news article picture of the confiscated arms?). Physical damage is all but guaranteed. I wouldn't be comfortable with a confiscation law unless police were mandated to case and protect every firearm and return them in the exact condition they were taken when the owner was deemed to be no longer a risk or be forced to pay recompense. I may be in the minority, but to me firearms are both family heirlooms and collectors items. I meticulously keep mine in excellent condition (well, I did until that boat accident). If I still owned any I'd expect that they maintain their condition and value until I pass on and they go into other hands. And I have the rest of my life to pass that care on to my heirs so they stay nice for generations.

Also, let's just say I have lived long enough to see how relationships can go bad and what levels an ex can stoop to to make your life hell and any law like these could be abused so easily to wreck your world even if you were quickly found to be in the right. And when these red flag situations happened the police would be thoroughly searching your entire house and property and totally turn your world upside down. Probably destroying your safe(s) along the way (assuming they took your stuff while you weren't home). You know that no law put in place for this would put financial responsibility on the cops to pay for that carnage.

So, while things can sound like good ideas you know that in reality all the 'for gun controllers' stuff is a big risk for gun owners. Couple that with the fact that the antis will never be satisfied and will always come back for more bites at the apple and you see why this stuff is unpalatable.

BB

[andrewP]

The further you look into some of these ideas, such as the 'red flag' thing, the more risk there is for good, law-abiding folks. Even if there was a real, valid reason to take someone's guns away temporarily due to risk, there would have to be adequate protections in the law & procedure to protect them and their property. There would have to be a facility to immediately return all the confiscated property upon reversal of the order or if/when the risk goes away. No police organization is going to release someone's guns quickly after such an accusation. And then you have the problems of storing the guns carefully and preserving their value. ANY time I have seen police confiscate guns they basically just dump them in a pile (ever see a news article picture of the confiscated arms?). Physical damage is all but guaranteed. I wouldn't be comfortable with a confiscation law unless police were mandated to case and protect every firearm and return them in the exact condition they were taken when the owner was deemed to be no longer a risk or be forced to pay recompense. I may be in the minority, but to me firearms are both family heirlooms and collectors items. I meticulously keep mine in excellent condition (well, I did until that boat accident). If I still owned any I'd expect that they maintain their condition and value until I pass on and they go into other hands. And I have the rest of my life to pass that care on to my heirs so they stay nice for generations.

Also, let's just say I have lived long enough to see how relationships can go bad and what levels an ex can stoop to to make your life hell and any law like these could be abused so easily to wreck your world even if you were quickly found to be in the right. And when these red flag situations happened the police would be thoroughly searching your entire house and property and totally turn your world upside down. Probably destroying your safe(s) along the way (assuming they took your stuff while you weren't home). You know that no law put in place for this would put financial responsibility on the cops to pay for that carnage.

So, while things can sound like good ideas you know that in reality all the 'for gun controllers' stuff is a big risk for gun owners. Couple that with the fact that the antis will never be satisfied and will always come back for more bites at the apple and you see why this stuff is unpalatable.

BB

Can't disagree with you there; the protective order/red flag thing would absolutely be the hardest to implement in a way that isn't problematic. I was only thinking about the potential legal/rights deprivation abuse pitfalls - your point about the value of many people's gun collections is well taken, and would also need to be accounted for. It does seem that extreme care would need to be taken in implementing anything on the "gun control" side of that proposal; all of the pieces on that side have good intent, but have the potential to cause issues if not handled with care. Add in the fact that there are plenty of people in the lawmaking process whose goal would be to create as many potential pitfalls as possible, and a pretty dim picture starts to be painted.

[goalie]

If California hasn't shown is that, yes, registration does lead to confiscation, and that background checks ARE registration, then maybe I'd consider it.

As it stands now: no effing way

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk

[Randygmn]

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

Once classified as a machine gun, they become illegal immediately. Because of the Gun Control Act of 1986, no “machine gun” manufactured since can be legally owned by civilians. There is no mechanism to open up the registry to grandfather existing bump stocks without an act of Congress.

As far as the proposal goes, I agree to everything....except items 1,2 and 3 in the “gun control” column. Incrementally, they got NICS checks 19 years ago. Now they are attempting a universal background check without registration. Give it another 19 years and they’ll say that wasn’t effective enough, we need universal registration. Sorry, but I’d rather just fight it out now. Kinetically. Winner takes all, once and for all.

[jdege]

If California hasn't shown is that, yes, registration does lead to confiscation, and that background checks ARE registration, then maybe I'd consider it.

When I check to see that the guy I'm selling to has a carry permit, I'm ensuring that he's passed a background check, and there's no paper trail and no backdoor registration.

But if I buy a gun in a private sale and before I take possession the seller needs to have an FFL call in to NICS to verify the sale, there is a paper trail and the possibility of a backdoor registration.

I don't think either would actually improve public safety in any measurable way, but I could accept the former. I will not accept the latter.

[xd ED]

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

Once classified as a machine gun, they become illegal immediately. Because of the Gun Control Act of 1986, no “machine gun” manufactured since can be legally owned by civilians. There is no mechanism to open up the registry to grandfather existing bump stocks without an act of Congress.

As far as the proposal goes, I agree to everything....except items 1,2 and 3 in the “gun control” column. Incrementally, they got NICS checks 19 years ago. Now they are attempting a universal background check without registration. Give it another 19 years and they’ll say that wasn’t effective enough, we need universal registration. Sorry, but I’d rather just fight it out now. Kinetically. Winner takes all, once and for all.

...Winner takes all, once and for all....

Never gonna happen;
Would you ever accept/ sit back on a permanent defeat?
neither would the antis.

Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty”

Wendell Phillips

[Ghost]

The fact that so many believe they can reason with unreasonable people is beyond me.