The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old April 21, 2013, 07:23 PM   #1
dakota.potts
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 25, 2013
Location: Saint Augustine, Florida
Posts: 1,120
Gun law "compromises"

So I was having a discussion the other day with somebody and I came to the conclusion that I would be willing to entertain a compromise for certain gun laws.

Not one of these "Why can't you compromise and only use a 10 round magazine" gun laws. For instance, I think doing a universal background check would be fine if they also created a Federal concealed carry permit allowing carry in prior gun free zones and face to face transaction among permit holders. I'd really like to see the repeal of the 1986 automatic weapon law where the NFA system is retained (rebooted for quicker background checks) but where we can buy modern automatic weapons. I've come to accept that the 2nd amendment is murky on things like explosives (Can you use it to strike at another? Some say yes, some say no) but the NFA act regulating explosives makes a lot of sense to me if they removed the tax on explosive rounds and limited only to launchers and standalone explosives like hand grenades. This would provide an outlet for people like me who believe the average citizen should be able to buy a Howitzer, but provide a compromise to make sure that only law abiding citizens can (legally) buy them.

I won't get into the politics of how that would get manipulated but my big question is why have no lawmakers actually tried a REAL compromise where both sides gain something they want? I'm not so much trying to argue the points above but just provide examples of what I think would be real, honest compromises.
dakota.potts is offline  
Old April 21, 2013, 07:30 PM   #2
Brian Pfleuger
Staff
 
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Central, Southern NY, USA
Posts: 18,599
Quote:
Originally Posted by dakota.potts
why have no lawmakers actually tried a REAL compromise where both sides gain something they want?
Because they don't want compromise. "Compromise" is the word that politicians use when the other side won't agree and they want to make them sound unreasonable. It's also a word they use when they're already so close to their goal that anything the other side gives up will essentially get them exactly what they want.

When your side refuses to compromise, it's always bravely "standing on principle". When the other side won't compromise, they're beholden to special interests or cowards trying to save their next election.

As far as your ideas, they might sound fine in their simplest form but the devil is in the details. As an example, federal "concealed carry" permits... you KNOW they'd come with "standards" for training and whatnot. Do we really want the Feds having their hands in THAT cookie jar?
__________________
Still happily answering to the call-sign Peetza.
---
The problem, as you so eloquently put it, is choice.
-The Architect
-----
He is no fool who gives what he can not keep to gain what he can not lose.
-Jim Eliott, paraphrasing Philip Henry.
Brian Pfleuger is offline  
Old April 21, 2013, 07:41 PM   #3
JimPage
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 21, 2010
Location: Rome, NY
Posts: 632
Because to the gun grabbers, compromise means just getting less of what they want while gunners give up some of what gunners have. They think your refusal to give up more is obstinate. They think you should compromise by letting them back off just a little on their demands. In each of their 'compromises' you lose a little while they gain a little.

Remember that "common sense" controls and "reasonable laws" are rarely (if ever) either "common sense" or "reasonable."
__________________
Jim Page

Cogito, ergo armatum sum
JimPage is offline  
Old April 21, 2013, 07:48 PM   #4
Aguila Blanca
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 6,319
"Compromise"?

Law Dog has summed it up far better than I could: http://thelawdogfiles.blogspot.com/2.../a-repost.html
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old April 21, 2013, 07:49 PM   #5
JimDandy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,405
Quote:
When your side refuses to compromise, it's always bravely "standing on principle". When the other side won't compromise, they're beholden to special interests or cowards trying to save their next election.
And to be fair to everyone on any side of any issue, that seems to hold true. We're often no less guilty. We just think we're right.
JimDandy is offline  
Old April 21, 2013, 07:52 PM   #6
patriotic
Member
 
Join Date: November 22, 2009
Location: Ohio
Posts: 81
No Compromise...

When dealing with a Constitutional Right there is no Compromise and no infringement. I will not compromise on the type of firearm I have, I will not compromise on the size of my magazine or what my rifle looks like. If a killer were to enter your home and tell you he was going to kill you, your wife and two children, would you seek a compromise to kill only your wife and one child? Any concession the gun grabbers get is a win for them and a loss for freedom. Should we have compromised during the Revolutionary War and kept 6 or 7 of the colonies and let the British have the rest?
patriotic is offline  
Old April 21, 2013, 08:27 PM   #7
dakota.potts
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 25, 2013
Location: Saint Augustine, Florida
Posts: 1,120
I think maybe you didn't read my full original post, patriotic. I'm asking why no politicians have brought up real compromise that gives us something as well as satisfying them in some way. Not this fake compromise that ends up with "We'll take less than we wanted to... this time"

EDIT: Surely, not EVERY politician can be anti-gun. I know many are for broadening rights. I don't see many of them trying to move these bills, even in states with huge 2nd amendment followings. Is this because they're afraid, or maybe something else, like simple lack of media coverage
dakota.potts is offline  
Old April 21, 2013, 10:52 PM   #8
breakingcontact
Junior member
 
Join Date: October 25, 2012
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 736
I'm not interested in any compromise. I know people say that's the essence of politics, but seems like that's what people say when they want YOU to compromise and paint you as a curmudgeon if you don't do what they want.

The government needs to focus on enforcing existing laws first, prosecuting people who break firearms laws and improving the mental healthcare system to include acting on reports of mentally unstable individuals.
breakingcontact is offline  
Old April 21, 2013, 11:07 PM   #9
NWPilgrim
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 29, 2008
Location: Oregon
Posts: 2,143
Gun law "compromises"

Because the Statists are interested in compromise. They have told us plainly many times their goal is the eventual elimination of all civilian guns. It has nothing to do with public safety.

Since gun laws do not contribute to public safety why would you give in on a right? If we did gain anything it could be easily taken away in the next congress.

Why is it do important to you that we compromise at all? There us nothing inherently noble in compromise. At best it can be utilitarian but it is usually the least preferred resolution.
NWPilgrim is offline  
Old April 22, 2013, 10:04 AM   #10
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 15,640
I agree with what was said. Since the end game is the elimination of everything except O/U shotguns for the rich and famous () and there is no fundamental acceptance of the right to have a reasonable firearm for SD and defense against tyranny - a compromise is just seen as a first step to a totally ban.

No one has said - we support your right to have a handgun and rifle if, simply, you are a law abiding citizen. Thus, we will have 10 round mag ban and gun show checks and that's it. Also, we will get rid of some the onerous restrictions on carry and buying such guns.

Not going to happen (not that I would agree with such) but there is no compromise. It's like asking for better air-conditioning in the Warsaw Ghetto - if only you go in. Sorry - the analogy just came to mind.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc.
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...05_Feature.htm
Being an Academic Shooter
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...11_Feature.htm
Being an Active Shooter
Glenn E. Meyer is offline  
Old April 22, 2013, 12:22 PM   #11
Spats McGee
Staff
 
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 5,043
I've done my fair share of homework on the issue of gun control, and how these "compromises" have played out. They're not compromises and they're not intended to be compromises. "We'll just take less of what we want for now" is not a compromise. I particularly like the link to the Law Dog Files that Aguila Blanca has already posted.

Further, I see no reason that I should ever have to compromise on Constitutional Rights. There's a reason they're called "Rights."
__________________
A gunfight is not the time to learn new skills.

If you ever have a real need for more than a couple of magazines, your problem is not a shortage of magazines. It's a shortage of people on your side of the argument. -- Art Eatman
Spats McGee is offline  
Old April 22, 2013, 02:17 PM   #12
P5 Guy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 1, 2005
Location: Tampa Bay
Posts: 1,132
I was married for 30 years, my dear ex-wife's idea of compromise was doing what she wanted. and that is pretty much how I look on political compromise.
Never Again!
P5 Guy is offline  
Old April 22, 2013, 02:30 PM   #13
speedrrracer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 15, 2011
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 259
I love the idea of compromise, but the gun prohibitionists prefer Orwellian Newspeak as opposed to English, so when they say the word 'compromise', as has been mentioned in other posts above, they don't mean compromise.

True compromise I would love to entertain. There's just nobody on the other side willing to have an honest discussion.
speedrrracer is offline  
Old April 22, 2013, 04:45 PM   #14
press1280
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 17, 2012
Posts: 218
There may be some kind of compromise later. Background checks(with some mechanism to prevent a backdoor registry) for National Reciprocity may be what passes.
press1280 is offline  
Old April 22, 2013, 05:48 PM   #15
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,237
Quote:
Background checks(with some mechanism to prevent a backdoor registry) for National Reciprocity may be what passes.
If that's the tradeoff, I won't support national reciprocity.
__________________
In the depth of winter I finally learned that there was in me an invincible summer.
--Albert Camus
Tom Servo is offline  
Old April 22, 2013, 06:36 PM   #16
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 15,640
How about national reciprocity, the banning of all state bans and the right any law abiding citizen to buy a firearm from an FFL without any state waiting period or buy from a private citizen at the gun show with no waiting period if it goes through an FFL (assuming show sales go through an FFL)?

No FFL for off premises sales. Also, putting into law that AWBs, mag limits, etc. are not allowed. Only full auto stay the same as far the fee (but the registry opened).

For that you mandate FFLs for private sales at shows and NO registry of any type by anyone.

Well, this won't ever happen - so it's like asking me what I would do when I win the 300 million lottery bucks.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc.
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...05_Feature.htm
Being an Academic Shooter
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...11_Feature.htm
Being an Active Shooter
Glenn E. Meyer is offline  
Old April 22, 2013, 06:38 PM   #17
Spats McGee
Staff
 
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 5,043
How about a state-level "Interstate Compact for the Carrying of Concealed Weapons" rather than national reciprocity. I'm entirely uninterested in having the feds set the standards for CCW.
__________________
A gunfight is not the time to learn new skills.

If you ever have a real need for more than a couple of magazines, your problem is not a shortage of magazines. It's a shortage of people on your side of the argument. -- Art Eatman
Spats McGee is offline  
Old April 22, 2013, 07:33 PM   #18
NWPilgrim
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 29, 2008
Location: Oregon
Posts: 2,143
Gun law "compromises"

Here is an idea, how about you compromise our way back toward "no infringement?" I would support a compromise that instead of getting rid of all gun laws we just roll them back to 1967, for now. No BC, mailorder OK, no nitpicky harassment of FFL dealers. That is compromise I can get behind.
NWPilgrim is offline  
Old April 23, 2013, 01:00 PM   #19
speedrrracer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 15, 2011
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 259
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spats
How about a state-level "Interstate Compact for the Carrying of Concealed Weapons" rather than national reciprocity. I'm entirely uninterested in having the feds set the standards for CCW.
All the anti-gun states would never go for it. They're afraid of states that issue LTC permits in crackerjack boxes, because then heathens from those states would flood their pristine urban utopia, and wash the streets in the blood of innocents.
speedrrracer is offline  
Old April 23, 2013, 01:03 PM   #20
Spats McGee
Staff
 
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 5,043
speedrrracer, that would be OK, too. All an interstate compact would mean is that all the signatory states would agree to recognize each others' permits. Folks seem to forget that there is no federal law requiring one state to recognize the other states' non-commercial DLs. Recognition can be achieved in the overwhelming majority of jurisdictions without federal intervention.
__________________
A gunfight is not the time to learn new skills.

If you ever have a real need for more than a couple of magazines, your problem is not a shortage of magazines. It's a shortage of people on your side of the argument. -- Art Eatman
Spats McGee is offline  
Old April 23, 2013, 01:03 PM   #21
JimDandy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,405
Quote:
I'm entirely uninterested in having the feds set the standards for CCW
I'm willing to let the state set the standard for CCW. And let the Feds mandate reciprocity.
JimDandy is offline  
Old April 23, 2013, 01:04 PM   #22
csmsss
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 24, 2008
Location: Orange, TX
Posts: 2,986
When the grabbers talk "compromise", what they are really talking about is the conversion of a right into a privilege - a privilege that can be easily revoked statutorily at a later time.
csmsss is offline  
Old April 23, 2013, 01:12 PM   #23
Spats McGee
Staff
 
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 5,043
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimDandy
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spats McGee
I'm entirely uninterested in having the feds set the standards for CCW
I'm willing to let the state set the standard for CCW. And let the Feds mandate reciprocity.
There's the rub right there. I don't believe for a moment that it will ever work that way. IMHO, if the federal gov't mandates reciprocity, it will set the standards. If it does not do so from the beginning of national reciprocity, it will do so in very short order afterwards. And who do you think will get to set the standards?
__________________
A gunfight is not the time to learn new skills.

If you ever have a real need for more than a couple of magazines, your problem is not a shortage of magazines. It's a shortage of people on your side of the argument. -- Art Eatman
Spats McGee is offline  
Old April 23, 2013, 01:12 PM   #24
rajbcpa
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 27, 2012
Posts: 313
The Background check proposal that failed in the Senate contained a provision that made states recognize other states concealed carry permits.

There is no "good" gun legislation.

Last edited by Tom Servo; April 23, 2013 at 01:15 PM. Reason: Redacted politics
rajbcpa is offline  
Old April 23, 2013, 01:20 PM   #25
JimDandy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,405
Quote:
There's the rub right there. I don't believe for a moment that it will ever work that way. IMHO, if the federal gov't mandates reciprocity, it will set the standards. If it does not do so from the beginning of national reciprocity, it will do so in very short order afterwards. And who do you think will get to set the standards?
We're only not looking at National Reciprocity already by about 3 votes on an amendment, and a better UBG bill- or A different makeup of the Judiciary committee. The amendment wasn't a bad swing at it. You'll have to drill down a couple links.. S2690 on the next two pages
JimDandy is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:40 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.13542 seconds with 7 queries