Dear above-mentioned people,
A good compromise, in my mind, involves neither party getting exactly what they want, but settling for something that both can be somewhat satisfied with. There are few examples of true compromise in politics; most often, it seems that final legislation leaves both parties with very little to be happy with and very little resembling their original goals.
When lip service is paid to compromise and a party with a small advantage in political power attempts to ram through a bad piece of legislation, effective organization on the part of the opposition can kill the entire legislative effort and leave the party in power with nothing but spent political capital.
It’s no surprise that those efforts were an ultimate failure. Anti-gun politicians and PACs can make all the noise they want about how the NRA just won’t listen to reason, and that they really are okay with the concept of individual gun ownership. What really killed your chances of passing any kind of national legislation were the following two factors:
– Gun owners saw the proposed legislation as ineffective, not to mention an attack on their rights
– Gun owners saw the proposed legislation as failing to offer any real compromise.
I submit that changes could be made to existing executive orders and federal legislation which would offer gun owners a reason to believe that (perceived) anti-gun politicians really are as pro-Second Amendment as they claim to be. These changes would have effectively no negative impact on crime in America, for reasons I will discuss below.
If any or all of these changes were suggested in conjunction with whatever gun control legislation was proposed next, I think a lot more gun owners would at the very least listen to what politicians have to say. Of course, not all of these proposals are of equal “value,” but that value could be relative to the proposed legislation.
#1 – Remove Suppressors/Silencers From The NFA Registry
In 1934, the National Firearms Act was passed, which required the registration of all silencers, short barreled rifles and shotguns, and machine guns with the ATF. Along with this requirement was a $200 tax stamp per item. Today, the registration process takes six to twelve months, depending on a variety of factors.
Short barreled rifles/shotguns and machine guns are easily demonized and it’s harder to make arguments for their utility to non-gun people. Silencers or suppressors, on the other hand, are of great utility to almost all shooters in all situations, and there is little reason to outlaw them from a criminal standpoint. Why? They help protect hearing and they only reduce the sound of a gunshot by a small amount. They don’t completely or even partially hide the sound of a gunshot.
When I say that, I mean that a loud rifle – one with a muzzle report in the 170 decibel range – would be reduced to approximately 135 decibels at best. That’s still 20 decibels louder than the front row of a rock concert, and not hearing safe without additional hearing protection. With subsonic ammunition, a handgun might be a little quieter – say 130 decibels or so. This is a far cry from the way these devices are often perceived and portrayed. They would offer little to no benefit to criminals, but many benefits to honest citizens who shoot regularly and wish to not lose their hearing over time.
Current laws raise the barrier for entry into the silencer market too high. They also make ownership impractical as not many firearms sold in the United States are ready to mount a silencer out of the box. In other countries, such as New Zealand, using a silencer is seen as being a polite neighbor.
It would make sense for all parties to advocate for the removal of silencers from the NFA registry.
#2 – 50 State Reciprocity for Carry Permits With Decent Standards
Concealed carry is, of course, a contentious topic. Many people find the concept of private citizens carrying firearms hidden on their person abhorrent; others see it as a natural right guaranteed by the Constitution and its amendments (well, the second one in particular). I realize that not everyone will be very happy with what I propose here, but hey, this article is about compromise, right?
Ostensibly, every state allows concealed carry, although some jurisdictions effectively prevent the practice by heavily scrutinizing applicants or only allowing those with political connections to acquire a permit to legally carry a firearm. On the other end of the spectrum are states such as Alaska, Arizona, Wyoming, and Vermont, which allow concealed carry of a firearm without any type of permit.
When you travel to other states, though, you quite naturally have to abide by their laws. For those who wish to carry concealed, it’s a complicated mess of which state recognizes which other states’ permits and vice versa. This often leads to a law-abiding and well-trained individual not being able to carry a firearm in a state which might allow residents of that state or certain other states to carry.
As an example, Nevada stopped recognizing Arizona carry permits because the latter reduced training requirements for carry permits. This is rather frustrating to me, and I must direct my frustration at well-meaning pro-gun groups such as the Arizona Citizens Defense League, which pushed lawmakers to allow carry without a permit (something I like and see the utility of) and reduce training requirements in order to acquire a state permit.
The latter point is something I don’t understand – if we’re going to jump through hoops and background checks and be listed in a state database in order to get a permit, we might as well get enough “training” to allow us to carry a firearm in a neighboring state with our shiny new permit. I certainly do not appreciate the results of that particular AZCDL effort.
Therefore, I submit that just as it uses the power of the purse to force states to limit the drinking age to 21, the federal government could force states to recognize concealed carry permits, especially if those permits came with stringent training standards and a criminal background check. How? Withhold federal grant money relating to law enforcement would be one possible solution.
The most passionate anti-gun folks won’t like this because “guns are bad” and the most passionate pro-gun people won’t like this because the “Second Amendment is (their) carry permit.” That said, something similar almost passed the Senate a few years ago, albeit without minimum standards.
However, the current system, in which many states only allow their own residents to carry guns, is simply illogical. Enacting a federal standard for a concealed carry permit – including training on use of force and accuracy/proficiency requirements – and requiring states to only recognize permits meeting those standards would have a positive effect on both the ability of citizens to carry firearms for self-defense (hooray, gun people) and the quality of character and training required to do so (hooray, people who think guns are bad and that 50 state reciprocity means felons can carry guns).
I saw an argument against 50 state reciprocity which basically went like this: “some states allow a right turn on a red and some don’t, and you have to obey the laws of each state when you drive there, because each state is different and has different needs.” This analogy does not fly.
If I am pulled over for a minor traffic violation due to a confusion of the law in another state, I probably wouldn’t even get a ticket. If I was caught carrying a handgun in New York City, I’d go to jail. Furthermore, there is no state which allows only residents of that state to drive cars in said state. Yet there are plenty of states which have that type of restriction on carrying a firearm.
A government-mandated (to please the anti-gun people) and privately administered (to please the pro-gun people) system for implementing this change is a possible amendment to this concept.
#3 – End Import Restrictions On Firearms Legal In The United States
Various federal laws and executive actions – the 1968 Gun Control Act and a 1989 executive order, as well as a 2013 State Department decision – have restricted the importation of certain types of firearms which are perfectly legal to manufacture or possess in the United States. Given a robust US manufacturing base, these actions seemingly have had little or no effect on the number or type of firearms available in the US. They have simply added to the complexity, cost, and burden of acquiring firearms which are functionally identical to firearms legal in the US.
They mostly affect three types of firearms: long guns (rifles and shotguns), handguns, and historic firearms (generally rifles).
In the case of the 1968 GCA “sporting purposes” requirement for imported firearms, the bottom line is that firearms have to go through a rather silly and pointless “test” of features, awarding points for each feature, in order to determine whether or not it can be imported – and this applies to all firearms, not just “assault weapons.” This silly “sporting purposes” test results in silly things like some Glock models being equipped with a “serrated target trigger” in order to pass the test.
Given that the Supreme Court recently recognized an individual right to own a firearm for self defense in the home, requiring that a firearm have “sporting purposes” would seem to be an unconstitutional regulation, as there is nothing sporting about self defense.
Next, we come to historic firearms. Traditionally, the Civilian Marksmanship Program imports – perhaps repatriates would be a better term – American firearms sold or given to other countries during their time of need. These might include bolt action or semi-auto rifles which date to the Second World War and before. They are largely desirable as nostalgia pieces and would offer no benefit over more modern firearms to criminals. Yet the Obama Administration saw fit to block the importation of M1 Rifles and M1 Carbines from Korea, for fear of their falling into the hands of criminals – although they did not cite any examples of the hundreds of thousands of other firearms distributed by the CMP seeing widespread use as “crime guns.”
Import restrictions on firearms are illogical and ineffective. They’re easily circumvented and serve no real purpose other than to offer a political victory to placate anti-gun action groups.
That’s Pretty Much It
If you (gun control proponents) want to prove that you really aren’t completely anti-gun, sincerely offer any or all of the above (and perhaps other things I haven’t thought of) as real compromises whenever you want some new piece of legislation to pass. Otherwise, you will keep meeting a massive and well-organized wall of resistance, effective enough to completely derail your efforts.
We don’t buy it when you say that you support the Second Amendment, but then take any possible action to limit the rights of gun owners. When you fail at big things like an assault weapons ban, you go for little things like halting the importation of Korean War relics, and you think that you did something to “stop gun violence.” Basically, you look at what pro-gun groups are saying and take the opposite position, regardless of the logic behind either side’s position.
We’re left with the impression that you really don’t mean what you say. That’s why we work so hard to oppose you wherever we can. If you want different results, you’ll need to change your actions, not just your words.
Respectfully,
Andrew Tuohy
Andrew for president.
Seriously, that is a very logical essay.
#3 would kill the domestic firearms industry.
Only the weak companies.
It will also force those companies that have become lax to improve just as Glock did to Smith & Wesson in the 80’s and Japanese car manufacturers did to the entire American car industry in the 70’s and 80’s.
Say they guy who’s never owned a gun company 😉
Pro-tip, they’re all weak when they first start out.
It did not kill the car industry, it would allow a vast collection of European firearms to enter the market and mix with our domestic crop of ARs, Shotguns, and Handguns. We would not be overrun by people only buying cheap AKs, SKSs, etc. Firearms have value to people just because of what they are, in a similar manner to vehicle styles
That’s free market for you.
No, it would not. We had a domestic firearms industry before these restrictions were imposed.
Not like we do now. Those import restrictions allowed small/cool companies like Novesky to happen…
Import X will kill domestic industry X.
The Smoot Hawley tariff act tried to save US industry. Instead it helped drag out the Great Depression for another decade.
Your comment is both incorrect and economic suicide if seriously applied.
Before the Gun Control Act of 1968, US firearms companies competed by turning out better products.
Before the Gun Control Act of 1968, US firearms companies competed by turning out better products.
I find the implications of that statement fail the smell test. America doesn’t have a problem competing with the world in terms of innovation. America has a problem competing with the subsidies, the lower costs owing to lower regulatory barriers, the slave wages, etc.
That’s more or less what I was going to say. It wouldn’t destroy the domestic industry, but it would certainly harm it. I like the fact that the leftists have dramatically strengthened the domestic industry by locking out foreign competition. If there’s a domestic manufacturing industry that I’d like to see protected, it’s domestic firearms. That knowledge, expertise, and infrastructure should be kept on American soil, and in American hands.
I disagree. The ONLY companies that would be harmed at all would be those very few manufacturing reproduction versions of the banned firearms (oddly enough … while we can’t repatriate the old firearms, brand new ones are okay.) In a very short while, the authentic versions would be bought up and then it would be back to business as before.
I’ve looked into buying a reproduction M1 carbine because I liked the way an original I had a chance to shoot shot for me. But I haven’t done so because they are twice the price of a quality new firearm. I can get a .308 self-loader for under $1,000 and Inland wants $2k for a relatively underpowered .30 cal M1 reproduction.
So, while I would be willing to pay $1,000 for a primo authentic M1 Carbine, I’m not a customer at all at $2,000 for a reproduction.
That is, until the repros drop to the price of a normal firearm, I’m not going to buy a repro.
#! If the government can have it, so can any individual citizen. Gary
^^^
Approve.
So while I completely agree that you have a great wishlist, you don’t actually offer much in the way of carrots to our opponents. I’ve had a few ideas on what those could be.
So the antis want universal background checks right? Ok sure they can have that. But only if a valid carry permit allows the purchaser to avoid the check. And since people might be making the purchase in another state, any states permit has to be valid, so therefore we need national reciprocity.
In the long run national reciprocity will do away with may(not) issue; which I feel is more important then reciprocity.
Second, instead of outright removing cans from the NFA, we just fix the NFA process. Replace the current background checks with NICS and change it so half the revenue from the taxes go directly to the NFA branch of the ATF. The other half goes to NICS to help in updating and maintaining their databases (carrot for the antis). Politically this would be the easier route as it could be seen as both cost cutting and revenue raising.
“So the antis want universal background checks right? Ok sure they can have that. But only if a valid carry permit allows the purchaser to avoid the check. And since people might be making the purchase in another state, any states permit has to be valid, so therefore we need national reciprocity.”
You’d also have to get rid of the federal statute that prohibits interstate sale of handguns.
On the whole, I think this idea is largely a winner: It isn’t a FID card (something I object to) because it isn’t strictly mandatory, and allows us to get around having to constantly go through NICS (a system that goes down frequently, and can be shut down in times of disaster). It also would open a new avenue for person to person transfers in states like CO.
We’ve been giving them carrots for the last century.
It’s time we used a stick.
BINGO … Margie, what do we have for today’s winner?
I think replacing the NFA tax stamp system with an all-encompassing license could be a win-win for everyone. You would only need to go through the rigorous checks, taxes, and related bravo sierra once(and maybe again for renewal upon expiration), and as long as you have this license, the process for buying NFA restricted items would be similar, if not the same as buying any other firearm.
This could appeal to the anti crowd as well. I’m sure the idea of adding a new federal licensing requirement to buy “silencers” and certain types of “assault weapons” would be flat out irresistible to a sizable portion of the do-gooders and liberals pushing their anti-gun agenda.
You don’t always have to give something up to compromise though. None of us are benefitting from the year and a half waiting period for the NFA stamps. A compromise that involves a budget increase in exchange for lowered wait times is win-win for everyone except the people who are VERY opposed to any expansion of the federal budget.
No idea why this got placed here, it was meant for an entirely different point on this thread…
Dave Sez – “You donât always have to give something up to compromise though.”
Dave, you admit to being a liberal, now I understand your arguments. I direct you to the dictionary which says,
com·pro·mise
ËkämprÉËmÄ«z/Submit
noun
1.
an agreement or a settlement of a dispute that is reached by each side making concessions.
Dictionaries work both ways. Concession: An acknowledgment or admission.
Seriously, what would bother you about cutting our NFA wait time down? Seriously? What are you giving up in such an arrangement?
Do you honestly think the executive branch of the government – uber anti-gun liberal Obama Justice Department – would cut the NFA wait time? It’s outright harassment. Anti-gunners love it.
a) I never suggested going through the executive branch. I would suggest the legislative.
b) The last three conservative presidents signed a lot more anti-gun laws that this one.
c) Yes, yes it is outright harassment. It’s terrible, and we should do something about it.
Ummm . . . You seem to forget the Obama administration does what ever the hell it wants. Laws on the books to be observed be dammed.
And you can forget the “Bush did it” argument. It’s getting stale.
Bush, Bush and Reagan did it. In fact, Reagan signed the law that we are currently talking about.
Facts. They are so darn annoying.
Well, see. there you go. Compromise. Gun laws given up in the effort to reach across the aisle. Reagan had to deal with a Democrat house both of his terms and neither Bush was really a conservative.
You said you are a Liberal. Maybe you voted for and supported Obama. Let’s hope you can get what you want. Legislatively though, NOTHING pro-gun wil even come to a vote with Harry Reid’s Senate. I’ve given up on Boehner. He cries tears when his arm is twisted.
OK I’m done with this. This discussion has probably gone by what Andrew envisioned.
While the idea of a federal concealed carry program is, on the surface, a good thing I am hesitant to allow the Federal Government control over something like that. Too much opportunity down the road for them to force restrictions on us, even within our own State later on down the road.
Call me crazy, but I just can’t see trusting that kind of program to an already over-powerd, over-spent, inefficient central government. If the State attempts to change existing laws it is much easier to fight a battle locally than to attempt change in DC.
All said though, it is a well thought out argument, but as another pointed out, I don’t think any of the anti-gun people will see any of the things you offered up as beneficial. Honestly, much of their argument is based on emotion and not reality. My experience is that they honestly do not mean what they say when they claim to be PRO-Second Amendment. I am pretty sure I am just preaching to the choir here though.
“…much of their argument is based on emotion and not reality.”
This.
A professor type I know put it this way: People with opinions based on emotion rather than reason are unlikely to be swayed by reason..
Agree completely. Although Andrew makes solid and logical arguments is his essay, they are ultimately futile.
The liberals oppose gun ownership based upon emotional argument, and are not interested in facts. The fallacies they pass as “facts” indicate they could care less about facts, statistics or truth.
This is the position we are in. Thus I recommend an offensive strategy that confronts their lies, and denounces their dishonesty. We cannot appeal to logical reasons why gun laws should be changed/improved/discarded. We confront them as liars, and force them to compromise and confess their duplicity.
One way to seriously help us in the gun rights movement is to drop all this “Us vs. Liberals” dogma.
Liberals, like myself, make up a very large chunk of the gun-owning society. We have CHL/CCW’s, we buy NFA items, we collect “Evil Black Rifles” and WE ARE NOT YOUR ENEMY.
I live in a left coast blue state that has regular public machine gun exhibitions. I can’t control what party the worst gun-banners join, but I will still do my absolute best to further our gun rights.
The massive chunk of the political left that has firearms as a deeply important part of our lifestyle are the reason that the federal gun control efforts fail despite democratic majorities.
I’ll stop ranting now. But I hope at least a few of my fellow gun owners will take this to heart: you have allies on the left. Maybe not on economics, maybe not on social policy, maybe not on foreign policy, but on this issue you have allies. Powerful ones.
Actually, I doubt many liberals make up a significant portion of the gun-owning public. You may be a much smaller minority that you think, but confirmation bias probably colors your outlook.
Whomever our allies are on the Left, they are few in number, weak in influence. Make no mistake, we’re glad you exist. But there is an inherent conflict between leftist policy and individual rights. Government statists never want to concede power to the governed.
While I may not totally agree with number 3, this was a very well worded letter. You should post it on the whitehouse.gov as a petition.
I would add #4: issue another amnesty to register machine guns, or repeal the ban on new manufacture of machine guns entirely. Without the ability to manufacture machine guns for the public, the firearm industry has been limited in its desire to innovate because the market is constrained to police and military applications.
The more items the better: Create a long list of demands, and then cut down the list a ton when it isn’t accepted, say we’re compromising by only asking for one or two of the items. Familiar strategy?
Add ammunition to #3.
I can agree that the Hughes amendment needs to go; it’s patently unconstitutional: it does not pass the Miller test.
We can argue up and down all day about whether or not the entire NFA process is unconstitutional based on the fact that it taxes a right (I support this position), but the fact remains that machineguns have long been acknowledged to have extensive military uses, and they are commonly used for such purposes (which would seem to me to pass the Heller test as well).
On that note, I would also argue that the minimum barrel length for an SBR/SBS should be lowered to 13.5-14.5″: Rifles and shotguns with those barrel lengths are now largely standard issue for both our Army and our local police departments. The definition of “short-barreled rifle” has already been changed at least once for just such a reason, and there’s no reason not to do it again.
As far as amnesties go, it is far past time that we have a general amnesty. Many veterans of foreign wars (WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, etc.) brought back firearms that were never properly registered (or they were, but all relevant paperwork has been lost). These guns are often historic, and their importers are dying at an increasing rate, thus leaving their estates in very difficult positions with regard to contraband property. Therefore, a general amnesty period is called for so that such firearms can be legally registered.
With AR and AK “pistols” now quite common and the recent popularity of .410 pistol shotgun revolvers, the whole SBR/SBS thing needs to go anyway. Not because it’s evil, unconstitutional or even annoying. It needs to go because it simply no longer matters.
You can take four AR lowers from the same company, from the same production run, identical in every way, and have one of them become a pistol, one a rifle, one a NFA-registered SBR and one a criminal unregistered SBR. All without modifying the receiver in any way.
At this point, why should we continue pretending that these are all somehow different guns?
I understand your point, but I doubt it is something we can realistically accomplish in the short term.
Honestly, I’d like to see the entirety of the NFA, GCA, and Hughes amendment go away entirely. That isn’t realistic either.
The problem is finding politicians that would support such proposals, or judges that would rule the relevant statutes unconstitutional. Another problem is that we need to be careful not to overplay our hand: this is what the other side did after Sandy Hook, and we both know how well that worked out for them.
You have a very, very good point. Overplaying our hand would work badly for us, and the result would likely be permanent. Aside from a few very specific incidents, all the laws stripping us of gun rights have stuck. If we lose an reform effort, that loss may never go away.
There is a chance we can make things a bit better for us right now, but yeah, we have to tread carefully.
^^^ That. Yes. JoeM for President. Use ‘their’ tactics against them. I love it.
Just a few comments and opinions –
#1 – Remove Suppressors/Silencers From The NFA Registry
My personal opinion is that the NFA is unconstitutional and should be repealed altogether, but since we’re talking compromise…My preferred compromise would be to reduce the processing time for ALL NFA items/stamps to something more in line with 2013/2014 standards.
Think about this – Remove the CLEO signature requirement and make it electronic just like NICS (even though NICS is not perfect blah blah blah.) FFL gets approval, they collect the $200 tax, they provide you a “temporary tax stamp” of sorts while the gov’t sends you the permanent paper work. You walk out with you’re shiny new suppressor, SBR, etc.
#2 – 50 State Reciprocity for Carry Permits With Decent Standards
Again, based on the 2A and recent Supreme Court decisions I believe national, constitutional, carry is the way to go here. However, my preferred compromise would simply be 50 state reciprocity. If you can legally carry in your home state then you can carry in any state.
“…stringent training standards and a criminal background check.”
I agree that any firearm owner, especially someone who carries a firearm for self defense, should seek professional training. That being said, I do not think it should be a requirement for ownership or carry. How does my grandmother meet “stringent training standards?” What about my uncle who had a stroke or my cousin who is disabled? If you are to include these people, and a thousand more categories of people who aren’t interested in or capable of “stringent training,” then all of sudden the stringent standards aren’t so stringent. The sole reason to have them then becomes to restrict as many people from defending themselves as possible. At least this is certainly what the government would use it for.
#3 – End Import Restrictions On Firearms Legal In The United States
I agree with this one all the way. Yes, it would be a blow to the last truly great sector of American manufacturing, but it would also give them a chance to show why American manufacturing was great to begin with. Get rid of the import restrictions completely. More competition means higher quality and lower prices. Restrictions on historical firearms is about being vindictive, hating gun owners, and nothing more. “Sporting purposes” is a sick joke.
While I see where you’re coming from, I have a few things to add:
1: I entirely agree about the NFA, both with regards to it’s lack of constitutionality, and the antiquated and inefficient transfer procedures.
On that note, I think that a relatively reasonable compromise in the present climate would be:
*de-regulate suppressors entirely, or reduce the transfer tax to $5 to put them in line with AOW.
*get rid of the notion of “transfer of possession = transfer of ownership” such that NFA items become like regular guns such that I can temporarily possess a friend/family member’s NFA items in their absence.
*get rid of the antiquated transfer procedure, replacing it with e-form filing, a 30-day waiting period, and a NICS background check (either when forms are filed, or on pickup).
While I object to waiting periods, it’s important to consider that the current NFA transfer procedure effectively is an indeterminate 9-15 month waiting period at the present time. A standard 30 days is far better than an indeterminate 9-15 month window, at the least because you can plan for it.
2: I can see where you’re going with regard to “stringent training” and I certainly agree. The real problem though is that reciprocity is more than just being able to carry, it’s about having a standardized set of laws governing what you can/can’t do while carrying, and where you can/can’t go. Some states prohibit carry in establishments that serve alcohol, some merely stipulate that those carrying may not consume, others mandate that above a certain BAC one may not carry, and others have absolutely no legislation on the matter whatsoever.
The point is to set federal standards such that one only has to be cognizant of ONE set of laws when they’re traveling. The point is not to make all states have the SAME laws, just to set a maximum standard.
I’ve been wondering about the universal background check issue. The way it’s currently setup I don’t want it, but if the NICS process was rrestructure, I might not be for it but not opposed either.
I don’t think that the number of criminals buying guns witnout being blocked by BG checks is really big enough be an issue, but if it will appease the antis then here’s what I’d do:
Restructure the NICS into a simple “no buy” list like the idea behind the “no fly” list. Essentially a list of convicted felons. Then completely leave out the section relating to what firearm you’re purchasing or the serial number. So the buyer fills out the paper work (nothing included relating to the firearm at all) with proof of ID. The dealer calls up NICS, the agent puts the info into the system and gives the dealer a simple “yes” or “no” answer. Another potential criminal gets prevented from getting their hands on a gun (Yay anti-gunners!) and there’s no risk of the agency creating a registry list. (Yay pro-gunners?)
Of course that’s assuming a lot of others things like criminal record reporting are overhauled or repaired for that system to work.
I have a fundamental issue with requiring that all gun transfers be approved on a case-by-case basis by a federal employee/database by an FFL.
Such a system is far too prone to downtime, both accidental/incidental (system outages, maintenance, etc.) and deliberate (like when they stopped gun sales during/after Katrina).
Therefore, the obvious solution is to have some kind of state-issued ID that tells whether or not an individual is a prohibited person. For numerous reasons, I believe that the best way to do this is to require that any ID issued by the state to prohibited persons announce that status.
First, I see an FID system as patently unconstitutional. As far as mandating that *felons* be the ones with the special mark on their ID cards, it makes sense: The court that adjudicates someone as being a prohibited person would then order that the individual turn in any non-PP marked identification cards, so that they could be replaced with versions with the correct markings.
Every state issues a driver’s license.
Perhaps there could be a federal mandate specifically stating and that all domestic licenses issued to a felon are required to have a mark indicating such and once someone is convicted of a felony they are required to surrender their current driver’s license? However the licenses wouldn’t be issued by a federal agency, still the state agency responsible, but required federally to have the mark.
That’s pretty much what I was suggesting.
Marking prohibited persons, and or putting them in a searchable database, seems to make the most sense, because a court would be in the position to demand the surrender of such identifying documents.
Sounds like a plan to me.
I always liked the idea of Constitutional Carry with an optional permit through training. Being more trained would grant additional protections for yourself under law relative to the depth/frequency of training you receive. Have you taken an approved 12 hour active shooter course? You can now carry in any school/federal building. Have you taken “class X”? You are now capped at $__ for what you can be civilly sued for should you hit a bystander.
More training would equal more protection and in the citizen’s best interest. Isn’t that one of the “Anti’s” big issues? Only police are trained enough to carry guns? Well, when the benefits of training encourage citizens to become as trained or more trained than police, shouldn’t the same protections police enjoy extend to that citizen?
Now poke holes in my thinking, I’m sure there are weak points, and fill it in with better thinking please.
Margaret Thatcher on “compromise”, your third word . . .
If you set out to be liked, you would be prepared to compromise on anything at any time, and you would achieve nothing.
Margaret Thatcher
Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/m/margaretth131837.html#QGrR1A16pQylvlzM.99
*slow clapping
I would add – “ending all Gun Free Zones” to the 50-state reciprocity suggestion.
All of those things in trade for what ? Ban on semi-autos ? “Universal” (read registry)
background checks ? Limit on ammo ? Magazine bans ? fingerprinting ?
I say no thanks. I do not trust this administration to hold their word about
anything. They will agree to anything to get it passed then change all the
definitions.
Big ditto
What about ending the abuse of the Commerce Clause as a means to get around the Federal Second Amendment and repeal NFA 1934, GCA 1968 and the Brady Bill?
Yes, there is a lot of utility to SBS’s and SBR’s. Just as much if not more than suppressors. How about changing #2 to “Repeal the NFA for all non-fully automatic weapons.”
The true compromise would have been to substitute the Brady background check bill for the NFA.
Bravo.
Unfortunately this won’t work because the gun control movement is led by anti-gun zealots who view this as a black & white issue with zero nuances. It is for them what abortion is to pro-lifers – a moral imperative that has no room for discussion or debate.
While the large majority of gun control advocates are not zealots and don’t fit into the above category they are not the ones driving the conversation.
Why are we talking compromise? This may come across as completely anarchistic of me (so be it), but the studies and reports and agencies have all supported what we have been saying all along: guns save lives. Not a single one of us here requires any piece of parchment to have a “right”—civil or otherwise—or permission from anyone to defend ourselves.
The overwhelming majority of citizens are, while not respectable, decent, and are not raping or murdering or pillaging. There are no police officers stationed inside my house, or accompanying me wherever I go in my non-bullet-proof clothing. It’s just me and those around me reliant upon ourselves and only ourselves to do what we’ve always been doing: exercising good judgement as we go about our daily lives. We’re not bludgeoning anyone to death, driving into crowds, or blowing up Federal buildings. And we’re certainly not committing mass murder with our firearms. So why talk compromise with our liberty and our lives?
No one can tell me they know better than I do, or the lady down the street, or the kid in the alley, when they are or are not in mortal danger. Only I can. Or she can. Or he can.
I am not now, nor ever shall be, willing to place my safety in the hands of others who have my best interests in mind. Because they aren’t THEIR best interest. They’re MINE.
A bone that I would like to throw in is how we define what a firearm is. The current method of treating the frame/receiver as the serial numbered, tracked and regulated part is silly. In the case of the guns that the anti-gun crowd hates the most, the receiver is often a bent piece of sheet metal.
Solution: barrels. That’s the part that leaves the most ballistic data on a criminally-shot bullet. That’s easily the hardest part of a firearm system to make in your garage. That’s the part that should be treated as a firearm, and the receivers/frames should be treated as spare parts.
Andrew,
Great list, and all your arguments make sense, but unfortunately I don’t see any of them happening. Why? Because the common denominator of all points raised is that only gun enthusiast would understand them and benefit from it. Only a small portion of gun owners have an interest in suppressors, carrying across State lines, and understand the import restrictions. On the last point, you can bet there is a strong lobbying from Colt, S&W, Ruger, etc to make sure it does not pass. For me personally the only one that matters really is the suppressor as I do understand the benefit of reducing sound blast in a home defense/close quarters situation. In my opinion cops should be issued suppressors for all their weapons. Unfortunately it’s not about what’s at the best interest of gun owners, it’s about what the majority of the population thinks is better, independent of their knowledge level of such “taboo” subject.
The speed of deployment is an overriding concern for cops weapons. Every extra millimeter on, say, a pistol, is an extra bit of time to draw. Since cops are almost always the last people to know a gunfight is going on, the sacrifice of draw time is unacceptable.
Patrol rifles … maybe. The barrels can be short enough that the suppressor length would be more or less negated, and speed of deployment isn’t a big deal with patrol rifles. They are the guns cops reach for when they have the luxury of time. And after using them, they are expected to use a radio more or less immediately after, so every bit of quietness helps. Change my “maybe” to an “absolutely – good idea.”
Tac/SWAT/entry/whatever they want to call themselves teams get suppressors if they want them already, though if they get some really really really good sound-canceling ear protection that still lets them talk and use the radio, unsuppressed weapon fire may actually work to their advantage when the technology catches up to that level.
It will be very hard for anti-gun people to compromise because their hate is based, not on logic or statistical data, but on confused feelings and the words of others. I have never heard a logical case from the anti-gun circle.
I agree that we do not need nor should have certain weapons. I would love to have a tank or APC, but I don’t need one. The same goes for rocket launchers and similar weapons (how about a 20mm folks?).
I am going to guess that this blog, like most blogs, is largely read by people who agree with the author. This make s me think the intended audience is unlikely to see this message. I did a quick google on the title of this post and got a page of hits that was exclusively pro-gun blogs posting links to it.
Does anyone know if any actual pro-restriction people saw this? I would be very interested in what that crowd would actually say.
Devil’s advocate here. I’ll speak for the antis since no one else is, including, it must be said, even a single element of Andrew’s “compromise.”
Objectively: what part of this is a political compromise? The only element that I believe is intended to be a sweetener, is the establishment of federal standards for carry requirements. Wat?
Andrew, since you intend to compromise I’ll assume you’re open to negotiation. Here’s my counter-offer:
1. Silencers for drum magazines.
The logic being:
– A “machine gun” is characterized by both fully automatic AND sustained (e.g. belt-fed) fire
– The NFA regulates full auto toward scarcity because “machine guns” are deemed too lethal, the same way hand grenades are too lethal
– Drums provide sustained fire capability, in a way that arguably increases the lethality of a gun – it’s why they exist in the first place. Ever hear of a single shot machine gun? Sustained fire IS part of what makes an MG an MG.
– Unlike, say, standard capacity 30rd magazines, drums are rare enough that they could conceivably be brought into a registration regime the way full auto sears/receivers were. Same deal: grace period to register current ones, no new manufacture/import.
– Since it’s the capacity and not the shape that matters, Put the limit at greater than 50 – if it holds 51 it gets a serial number. That will exempt any conceivable box mag, as well as 50 round drums.
As a sweetener, I’ll allow removing the 16″ minimum barrel requirement for rifles/shotguns while maintaining 30″ overall length requirement, as well as ending the import ban dumbassery.
2. 50 state reciprocity for CCW for a firearms license requirement.
– I agree that 50 state reciprocity simply makes sense, not only for CCW while trying to navigate the legal landscape, but for the public safety benefits of decent standards.
– If decent standards make sense for people who conceal guns on their person, then they make sense for people who handle guns in general.
– Current CCW requirements aren’t a gun registry and this wouldn’t be either, and to prevent any ambiguity, federally ban firearms registries.
– License is absolutely required for open carry, but states still regulate open carry laws individually. Don’t like that open carry can still be restricted? Do us all a favor and just put it back in your pants.
– Model the license requirement roughly on the TX Hunter Safety Course requirement: One-time lifetime license, exempt if born before ’71, minimum age 9 (8 and under exempt with licensed adult’s supervision), 6 hour classroom requirement which can be done online if over 17. Unlimited do-overs. No requirement to carry a card, ATF logs licenses by SSN.
One difference: one field test WOULD be mandatory by federally licensed trainer (covering rifle, shotgun, handgun). Nominal fee from student to cover paperwork and ammo – say $20 (TX course is $30). Exemptions for hardship, allowance for “charity” to assist with licensing, e.g. Appleseed type events.
I would take this deal in a heartbeat if it meant I could buy silencers in plastic clamshell boxes by the rack full at Academy, not pay a tax on an SBR that’s longer than a legal bullpup, carry with confidence while traveling, and have the tiny peace of mind that the people at the range with me have at least had to have reviewed the four rules before. If I wanted a drum badly enough (assuming for the sake of argument that I don’t own any already) – I’d do what MG owners do now, which is pony up the cash for the ever-scarcer ones. You know, as an investment.
I look forward to hearing your thoughts on this, as I believe this represents an ACTUAL compromise, and one I personally would have no problem with.
I’d trade background checks and mental health red-flags for private sales for suppressor the change. I have several and want others but the wait time after the purchase and payment (12 months and counting) is prohibitive. This firearm part needs to come out of the shadow of machine guns. There are no negatives for antigunners to battle, only positives for all. Agree gun registration and confiscation is clearly impossible under the 2nd amendment and no longer a dream for Liberal America. We’d all be better off. This country has “bigger fish to fry” with 49 million getting food stamps and the 17 trillion national debt facing the next generation.
No compromise on anything. If you compromise your shorts next the left will want your testicles – first one then the other. AND, you will be vilified for not wanting the give up the last thing you hold dear.
Suppressors are scary to some people, and educating them is an uphill battle. My dad is of the belief that they are some sort of magical murder-devices that are nearly supernaturally evil. This is my dad; not some stranger or a public group. I should be able to get through to him, but I have utterly failed in trying to explain the reality of these devices.
If I can’t educate him, it’s a safe bet that we won’t be successful in educating anti-gun advocates.
So we aren’t going to get suppressors removed from the NFA. What we CAN do is advocate for a bigger budget for the ATF to process the applications, and perhaps even get the tax stamp’s cost reduced a bit.
The most common complaint about dealing with the NFA is the massive waiting time. Honestly, if that problem went away, I really wouldn’t care much if I had to go through it.
Realistically we stand a much better chance of speeding it up than we do of getting anti-gun people to sign off on deregulating scary demonic murder tools.
Hi Dave – Do you own a suppressor/stamp? Have you shot a gun with one? They are not really silent like in the movies. I think having and allowing suppressors is a good thing. They cut down on the noise at the range and complaints from the neighbors. They cut down on the noise, excitement and public hysteria during a gun battle. Guns with suppressors make for a longer barrel and thus harder to conceal. But of course public hysteria is what the anti-gun folks want and hysteria make for good news. Oh well.
Fred – I think you may have misunderstood my post. My dad is the one who believes the myths, not me. All the comments about demons and magic and supernatural powers was just a sarcastic way to point out that the public often believes outlandish things about them.
I have shot them; various friends and family have brought them out to group shoots from time to time in the 25 years I have been an avid gun collector. Additionally, I am a US Army veteran as well as having been both a deputy sheriff and a police officer, so I am familiar with the correct answers to most of the other common myths non-gun people believe (and wow, do they have some really absurd beliefs some times. It’s an ongoing struggle to keep explaining to them that pistol grips don’t make a gun accurate when shooting from the hip, “sniper rifles” are not different than deer rifles, and nobody is going to pick up a .50BMG and be able to shoot people a mile away without going through a hell of a lot of training (and probably using a computer to work out the scope settings), or, my personal favorite, that they think full-auto is sold at Wal-Mart.
As for tax stamps, Not yet. I am currently in my ninth month of waiting for one tax stamp, and first month of waiting for two more tax stamps. All three are for suppressors so far, though there is a remote chance I will try buying MAC 10 in the next year or so, since my state allows FA.
Though I have to respectfully disagree about the reduction in hysteria in a gun battle. They are still loud enough to be unmistakably a gunfight, which is all that needs to happen to freak people out. And since almost nobody CCWs with a can on their pistol (as you said: harder to conceal), such a battle would more likely be premeditated, and thus people would probably opt to have long guns (since if they have the luxury of prep time, they are idiots for sticking with lower-power, lower-capacity less accurate pistols when they don’t have to). Plus, only one side is likely to have a suppressor, since only one side of a gunfight typically is aware that it’s about to happen. People don’t like to give up the element of surprise.
My armchair quarterbacking here is that adding suppressors to the mix also probably means long guns being added in, and the sight of them (handguns in gunfights are often not or barely seen, since they move around fast and most of their surfaces are covered by the hand with the rest being generally matte black) would cause more panic. I guess it would cut down on panic half a mile away, but that’s kind of a small trade-off.
Very nice well thought out essay. Nice layout on the comments page.
Dave – Thanks for the response. The hysteria I refer to is relatively new in the last few decades. Not only the sound but sight of militarized police, and the constant anti-gun hype by the media. Folks now run and scream at the mere sound of a firecracker. I watched the Kennedy assassination tapes over and over that the news put on recently. I noticed that folks ran towards the gunshots not away from them. What a change to now, thanks to the media. Yeah, suppressors legal or not probably wouldn’t make a difference today – except for the sight of them.
Here in “Berkeley East” the anti-gun sentiment is so rampant that a neighbor called the police, who came and handcuffed the guy etc, a deer hunter, shotgun season, in camo walking a short distance from his car to his apartment with his shotgun.
In short, and again, I say stay the ground. Do not compromise on anything. Let the anti-gun issue fade. Compromise means you have something to give up. The left with take it and demand more.
Fair enough. For what it’s worth, most of us on the left dislike Reid (for widely differing reasons) and I can’t imagine him doing anything pro-gun at all.
I may just be wishful right now. Tuning up the NFA process is sadly the only thing I think we can actually get right now. It would be such a small thing, but it would at least be something.
Agreed. This moved beyond the original thread. I’m done too.
Couldn’t agree more on the NFA issue, except that I’d like to see SBR/SBS/AOW taken off as well. We all know criminals don’t file paperwork to saw off a barrel and these elements of the NFA only serve to make felons of some nitwit who puts a vertical grip on his pistol and takes it to the range.
The inherent conflict you mention is from very, very, very far-left examples. It’s as an absurd overreach to apply it to all of our country’s left as it would be to apply Stormfront rants to the entire right.
We aren’t boogeymen. We are roughly half the country (and even in the reddest of red states, we make up around 35% of the population).
The NY Times reports that 25% of democrats own guns. Dems from any districts outside parts of California and New England have to make various pro-2A speeches to get elected, and they ain’t doing that to get GOP votes. They know darn well they aren’t getting GOP votes. They are pandering to guys like me because we have sunk campaign in the past for trying to screw with the 2A.
I’m not sure what you think a liberal is, but it basically means I don’t mind a slight tax increase so my roads get better paving, and that the government shouldn’t regulate what people do in their personal life. If you only hear about us from our enemies, how accurate do you think they are going to try to be?
Hi Dave – Trying to defend your ideology again. Try this logic: Since there is no liberal party (no conservative party either) a liberal is a Democrat. (A conservative is a Republican)
Therefore if you are a Democrat then you must own and espouse all that the Democrat party wants to do about eliminating gun ownership in this country. It’s that simple. Own the ideology!
But I’m not a member of the democratic party. If I was, I would have said that. I’m not a party member, I don’t vote for the party, and I only vote for their candidates about half the time at state level or above (parties are abolished locally, so we don’t have to deal with that).
I’m a liberal with a liberty-minded streak. If you really need a party-type label for me, I’m a Socialist-Libertarian. Socialist on most infrastructure issues, libertarian on personal freedom issues.
Good grief! Socialist/Libertarian seems to be a contradiction of terms.
Yeah, it sounds odd, but it’s the most honest label I can think of for me. I believe in absolute freedom to do anything you want as long as you don’t hurt anyone else (this means own guns, get gay married, eat whatever the hell you want, etc).
And I believe that society has a huge need to band together for resources and services (that’s the wussy way of saying “taxes” I guess).
So, you may see why I find it much easier to just say “liberal that likes guns.” It’s a lot shorter and easier to write.
feds please release our semi auto ww2 guns and allow them to be imported.the semi auto mp44 by ssd should be allowed to be imported to since no us manufacturer wants to build one with many collectors wanting one but not at ridiculous prices.most of the ww2 designed guns are 60 years older these guns are for collectors and not gonna be used by criminals to commit crimes.if the ww2 guns are semi auto I see no reason they shouldn’t be allowed to be imported back into the us.
Andrew I want to personally thank you for your genius writing skills and please keep up this awesome blog! Many kudos to you my friend.