Can both sides ever compromise?

[Endangered Specie]

I am wondering if, it would ever be possible to have pro-gun and anti-gun people, given both sides belief in that laws need to be changed (one way or the other), would be willing to do sort of a tit-for-tat arrangement. Sort of like the FOPA of 1986, which protected gun owners from changing local laws if they were merely passing through, but at the same time banned full auto weapons from that point on.

Now, I am a pro-gun person, but I would probably sign up for this:

Lets say someone proposes a law that both closes the 'gun show loophole' (which is more of a federal government can't regulate intra- state commerce thing, but I digress) and enacts florida style national concealed carry policy.


I can think of other ideas, but, lets try this one at first. So, both sides weigh in if you would support a bill like this, or others?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

1. The full auto ban doesn't seem to exist.

Civilians can buy full auto weapons if they have the proper permits.

[Endangered Specie]

3. Which is why I said "from that point on"

full autos before 1986 were grandfathered in. In actuality, FOPA did BAN POSSESSION of them, but it is an affirmative defense that gun in question was registered before 1986.

This is why, its often illegal to modify/repair parts of a registered fully automatic gun (for example, an UZI that was made full auto by modifications to its bolt, chiefly so that it would fit in a semi-auto reciever, you cannot make the reciever 'full auto' as well... for that is manufacture of ANOTHER machine gun, post 1986).

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

14. But with the appropriate permits you can buy full auto weapons made after 1986.

[pipoman]

18. Really?

I have been under the impression that under no circumstances can a non-LEO, non-military, purchase an automatic weapon produced after 1986 or not entered into the machine gun registry prior to 1987. Am I wrong?

[Katya Mullethov]

21. Special Occupancy Tax

Or an SOT as they are commonly reffered to . They can manufacture them for sale in the proper channels and keep "dealer samples". These are the post 86 machineguns that do not bring anywhere near as much much money as a pre 1986 transferable because a common man cant own them .

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

25. Someone has to sell weapons to those SWAT teams and Private Defense Contractors.

[Ter]

28. How does one get these proper permits?

[armueller2001]

5. In some states.. unfortunately

Illinois is not one of them.

[benEzra]

8. If they're wealthy enough to drop the price of a car or a house on a range toy...

In my case, a NFA Title 2 AK-47 currently costs over three times what I paid for my car, and there are quite a few that sell for more than we paid for our house. The 1986 Hughes Amendment to the McClure-Volkmer Act was far more of a ban than the Feinstein law was.

I've kicked around the idea of applying for a Form 4 and getting a Title 2 suppressed firearm (I think a repro DeLisle carbine would be a lot of fun) but unless I win the lottery or an unknown wealthy relative gifts me some major buckazoids, there is no way I will ever be able to own a selective-fire firearm.

[rrneck]

2. Since guns are

ubiquitous, portable, dangerous, and indispensable whatever compromise we reach would involve individual empowerment unless the security of individuals could be significantly increased.

The only solution I have seen so far is to open NICS to individual buyers, but I like the idea of anonomyous firearms ownership and I haven't figured a way around that yet since we would always be trusting information to an entity who we may, possibly, not be able to trust at some future date.

[Endangered Specie]

4. Don't all NICS transactions have to be destroyed after x hours?

If they are not, then I seriously doubt they could be admitted into a court of law.

and finding out that .gov hadn't been obeying the law, in this case, would probably erupt into a massive scandal and calls to dismantle the NICS.

[rrneck]

6. There y'see. Now I'm learning.

Then I feel a lot better about it. I have to admit I'm still pretty pissed off after the previous administrations enthusiasm for data mining. My trust in government is at an all time low.

edited for clarity

[taurus145]

26. One problem

If anyone truly wants to go mining for who bought what, unless the hard drives on the computers used for NICS are destroyed, the information can be recovered.

FBI, BATFE, and NSA have plenty of specialists in data recovery.

[AtheistCrusader]

7. Since when is the 'ban' side ever willing to compromise?

I've eaten enough bullshit restrictions, regulation, and arbitrary bans on inanimate objects.

Tell you what, let's 'compromise', you can keep verbal free speech, but no more posting on the internet, ok? Too much libel in the world. We can put a stop to that, and hey, you'll still have 'free speech' right?

[SteveM]

9. Openning NICS to everyone gets a reasonable response here...

the problem, expressed by many, is the data could be accessed for other purposes than for which they were intended; a pocket definition of "corruption." We have already seen where gun-controllers/banners wanted access to NICS so they could "research" crime trends. Controllers/banners want to get at that data in a bad way; this is a culture war, after all.

If some kind of technology/entity could be employed which would both keep the data OUT of the government's hands as well as the hands of ANY group/individual, and oversee the erasure of that data after a short time period, then I am ready for a proposal. Such a measure would render moot any notion of a "loophole."

A Florida national concealed carry policy/law would be preferable to the admittedly shrinking patchwork we have now. I'm just not sure how that can be enacted constitutionally (perhaps incorporated under the 14th Amendment or under full faith and credit in Article IV, Section 1?).

For teckky nerds: is there a technology/system which would allow for individual NICS access, yet prevent a permanent record or data transfer outside of NICS?

[eqfan592]

13. It would be difficult...

...to secure any NICS information if you were to have it accessible via a computer, because even if you restrict the ability to directly "save" the information, all the person must do is take a screen capture and save the picture and they have the information, and there's really nothing you can do about that. Basically, anything where the person is able to pull the info up on their computer is compromised.

I think any "opening up" of the NICS system to the general public would have to be over the phone still. I was actually just thinking about the problem of abuse of this system, and I thought of a couple of possible solutions. One would be that the seller would have to verify the buyers SSN before getting any information. This could simply be done by having the seller hand the buyer the phone and having him provide the number. Now ID theft is a problem, but honestly, if somebody with bad intentions has your SSN, using it to get background checks done is probably the least of your concerns. But another way to help with that problem would be to, along with the SSN, the buyer could set up some sort of account with the NICS before hand, where they provide them with a series of questions that only they would know the answers to, and these would be verified before any background check info was provided to anybody requesting.

Would this system be a bit cumbersome? Big time. But I think just about any system that allows for the general public to perform background checks while still implementing privacy safeguards is going to have to be cumbersome by design. Unless, of course, one of you guys has an uber idea that you've been sitting on that would make all of this a snap. :D

[GreenStormCloud]

10. We gunnies have been on a 15 year winning streak.

And we are poised for some major victories in the next few years. Why compromise now?

[Katya Mullethov]

11. Compromise without end , is not compromise

No more private ftf sales and concealed carry lorded over by the fed is not compromise . There is always going to be a stick , but the carrots get progressively smaller . Many times we are presented with two differently sized sticks .

[slackmaster]

12. FOPA '86 was a pact with the Devil

Would we accept a "compromise" on abortion at the federal level, so that any elective abortion before 23 weeks is allowed an any after 23 weeks becomes a felony?

I won't compromise on civil rights.

[rd_kent]

15. Both side DO NOT beleive the laws need to be changed.

The PRO side believes that current laws NEED TO BE ENFORCED.

[beevul]

16. Compromise?

Doubtful.

Compromise has gotten us (gun owners) where we are today, and taken us from whence we were pre-1934 - in the legislative sense. Well...compromise not necessarily by the textbook definition - we (gun owners) have given, and they (the opposition) have taken.


Before we "compromise" any more someone tell me...we started compromising in 1934, and since then:

What have we gained???

[PavePusher]

17. Compromise? Sure...

What are the grabbers willing to give up? Let's start there, this time.

[Remmah2]

23. +1

Infringed and compromise are two words not comprehended well by the grabbers.

[Euromutt]

19. I don't object to compromise

I do object to the gun control lobby's claiming "compromise" when in fact it's using wedge tactics.

I'd happily support the idea of instituting a license for firearm owners if I could trust the gun control lobby not to pursue de facto gun bans by obstructing the issuance of licenses.
I might get on board with registration if I could trust the gun control lobby not to use such a registry to carry out confiscations at some later date.
I might support "safe storage" requirements if I could trust the gun control lobby not to set the criteria for what constitutes "safe storage" so high as to be prohibitively expensive for the average gun owner.
I wouldn't object to allowing firearms and ammunition to be regulated according to consumer safety rules if I could trust the gun control lobby not to try to ban firearms and ammunition on the basis that they form a "safety hazard" when used irresponsibly (as if alcohol, motor vehicles, chainsaws and a thousand other consumer products don't when used irresponsibly), and we know that is exactly what the gun control lobby wants to do, because they've said so on numerous occasions.

In short, I'm not interested in acceding to any "reasonable, common sense" (puke!) gun control measure if there isn't some guarantee that the gun control lobby isn't going to try to exploit that measure to impose de facto gun restrictions that go far beyond "compromise." It is precisely because the gun control lobby has done so every single time they've had the chance that pro-RKBA types aren't interested in "compromise." Why would you make a deal with someone who has a history of trying to screw you over? In that regard, it is the gun control lobby itself that has made itself the worst enemy of gun control measures that actually are reasonable by showing they can't be trusted.

Well, that's their own fucking mess, they can fucking well clean it up themselves.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

20. Define compromise...

A compromise is where the grabbers give up up something AS WELL AS gunners gving up something.
With tens of thousands of gun laws on the books... I thend to thing gunners have more than "compromised" in the past.

Here's a compromise: we won't step in your way addressing gun violence as long as the legislation is meaninful and addresses the root causes of violent crime. Hint: guns don't cause crime.

[michreject]

22. Only when the grabbers agree with me 100%

I'm right. They're wrong.

[gorfle]

24. The limits of compromise.

I am all for compromise. If you look at all the myriad of gun laws on the books you will see that there has been lots of compromising already.

The place I draw the line for compromising is firearm ownership anonymity. I will not agree to any law that compromises firearm ownership anonymity.

The only way to close the "gun show loophole" is to require background checks for all firearm transfers, private and commercial.

If such background checks are conducted at the time of sale, you have just made a national firearm registry.

Instead, I propose what I have proposed before: A national FOID (Firearm Owner ID) system, similar to what Illinois has, with one important difference: Rather than be issued on-demand, as they are today, which paints all holders as firearm owners, they should be issued as part of the driver's license / state-issued ID, by default to everyone, except for those who opt-out.

Every person who applies for a driver's license or state-issued ID should be run through the NICS background check system, unless they choose to opt-out. If they pass, then your FOID number will be encrypted on the back of your ID, in a non-human readable format. By doing this, no one can tell by just looking at your ID whether or not you have an FOID number. Is addresses the privacy concerns of people who don't want people to know whether or not they are eligible or don't want to own firearms.

Then, at the time of any private sale, the seller will be required by law to take the buyer's ID to a local FFL dealer, post office, or police station where the ID can be scanned by a machine and a paper receipt printed out for the seller's records if the machine indicates the buyer is eligible. Just as in Illinois today, the seller will be required by law to keep this record of sale for 10 years.

By assigning FOIDs to everyone, not just firearm owners, you preserve firearm ownership anonymity.

[PavePusher]

27. I see your point, but...

I already have an FOID. It's called The Constitution. If I can't own firearms, the burden of proof is on the Government, not me.

If someone is too dangerous to be allowed access to firearms, why are they allowed free access to a multitude of other weapons?

[gorfle]

30. I would like to see private firearm sales screened.

I already have an FOID. It's called The Constitution.

I agree with you.

However, today it is stupid simple for people with criminal or mental backgrounds to buy firearms. All they need to do is open the local Penny Saver. Why? Because private firearm sales don't require NICS background checks.

I have no problem with NICS background checks, and I very much want to prevent criminals and insane people from buying them.

An FOID system that preserves anonymous firearm ownership would go a long way towards doing this.

[PavePusher]

31. I would tend to agree with you on this...

as long as the system is free of charge, i.e. supported by the tax dollars of society at large. Those who call for it (pro- and anti- alike) and those who believe it would improve safety and those who would benefit from the increased safety (all overlapping but not identical groups) should bear the burden of paying for it. It should not be used as another tax on a Right.

[gorfle]

32. I agree.

I would prefer to see it implemented with no point-of-use fee, but I doubt it will happen that way.

FFLs charge to do NICS background checks already today.

But I agree, it should be free, and automated, and there should be no record kept of the process.

[jody]

29. IMO compromise is impossible on any issue that is truly polarized, e.g. abortion, same-sex marriage,

prayer in public schools, RKBA.

[virginia mountainman]

33. Everytime we "compromise" we loose....

What does the other side, EVER give up???? Not a damn thing....

So, they can burn in that special hell, where those who infringe on another's civil rights go.

Before we can talk "compromise" the anti civil rights repukes, need to learn the meaning of the word, and decide what THEY, are willing to give up....