Gun law "compromises"

[dakota.potts]

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.

[Brian Pfleuger]

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?

[JimPage]

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."

[Aguila Blanca]

"Compromise"?

Law Dog has summed it up far better than I could: http://thelawdogfiles.blogspot.com/2013/01/a-repost.html

[JimDandy]

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.

[patriotic]

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?

[dakota.potts]

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

[breakingcontact]

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.

[NWPilgrim]

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.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

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.

[Spats McGee]

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."

[P5 Guy]

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!

[speedrrracer]

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.

[press1280]

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.

[Tom Servo]

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.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

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.

[Spats McGee]

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.

[NWPilgrim]

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.

[speedrrracer]

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.

[Spats McGee]

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.

[JimDandy]

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.

[csmsss]

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.

[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?

[rajbcpa]

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.

[JimDandy]

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 (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/thomas)

[Spats McGee]

You do recognize that I consider "better UBG bill" to be problematic right? IMHO, it's a little like saying "better influenza." ;) I don't support federally-mandated reciprocity, either.

Also, I'm having trouble with your link. I don't think there are ~2700 bills in the Senate right now, and depending on which number I exclude (assuming that you mistyped something), I either wind up with a fisheries bill, or something about Fillipino veterans.

[csmsss]

You do recognize that I consider "better UBG bill" to be problematic right? IMHO, it's a little like saying "better influenza." I don't support federally-mandated reciprocity, either.It is the very definition of a Hobson's choice - the key is not to be put into a position where the choice must be made.

[JimDandy]

"better UBG bill"

In this instance, I meant one with a higher chance of passing.

And try this one... http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r113:1:./temp/~r113gC2JJD:e8472:

If that still doesn't work, it's Senate Amendment 719 y Senator Corwyn, or the Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2013 Thomas makes it difficult to get a non-temp link at times.

[Spats McGee]

Well, that solves the link, but the bill still has problems:

First, while I'm certain that Senator Cornyn is well-meaning, and I'm pretty sure that the NRA supports federally-mandated reciprocity, I do not. As noted above, if such were to pass, I'd give it about 36 hours between passage and someone screaming "we've GOT to have STANDARDS!" No, thank you.

Second, it wouldn't apply to anyone travelling to Illinois, nor would it allow Illinois residents to carry. Take a look at my version, edited only for brevity and emphasis:
(a) In General.--Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any State or political subdivision thereof to the contrary, (1) an individual who is not prohibited . . . . and who is carrying a government-issued [photo ID] . . . . and a valid [CCL] . . . . may possess or carry a concealed handgun (other than a machinegun or destructive device) . . . .in any State other than the State of residence of the individual that--

``(A) has a statue that allows residents of the State to obtain licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms; or

``(B) does not prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms by residents of the State for lawful purposes; and

``(2) an individual who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm, and who is carrying a government-issued photographic identification document and is entitled and not prohibited from carrying a concealed firearm in the State in which the individual resides otherwise than as described in paragraph (1), may possess or carry a concealed handgun (other than a machinegun or destructive device) that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce in any State other than the State of residence of the individual that--

``(A) has a statute that allows residents of the State to obtain licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms; or

``(B) does not prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms by residents of the State for lawful purposes.

[JimDandy]

Second, it wouldn't apply to anyone travelling to Illinois, nor would it allow Illinois residents to carry

True enough, But that's because Illinois sets the standard in Illinois.

[Spats McGee]

Do you really expect someone like Senator Lautenberg to allow folks from, say, Vermont to CC in NJ?

[JimDandy]

I don't expect he'd have much say in it if passed.

[csmsss]

I don't think a bill that imposes reciprocity on the issuing state's terms gets passed by the Senate.

[JimDandy]

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=113&session=1&vote=00100

It only missed by three. It was the amendment closest to passing- evn more so than any of the "control" amendments. In a (D) controlled Senate.

[csmsss]

It only missed by three. It was the amendment closest to passing- evn more so than any of the "control" amendments. In a (D) controlled Senate. If I'm being argumentative, it's because I enjoy the discussion - I hope you'll understand. In any case, an argument has been made that this bill was intended by the administration not so much to be enacted legislation, but to contain sufficient poison pills that would slide by the Senate and be rejected by the HoR, thus supplying the administration with political capital for the 2014 midterms. Thus, some horse-trading, permitting amendments which would be otherwise unconscionable to gun-grabbers was allowed to be voted up or down knowing that there was enough poison in the bill that the representatives would vote against the overall provisions even if one or more amendments were to our benefit.

[Spats McGee]

I don't expect he'd have much say in it if passed.
Perhaps not, but it opens the door for federal regulation of CCW standards. I do not want want folks from other states, in whose election I have no voice, getting a vote in my CCW standards.

[csmsss]

I guess what I'm saying is - if you created a clean bill which provided for federally-enforced reciprocity of CHL permits, and didn't allow states to opt out, and which required the "host" state to honor any and all other states' CHL's without equivocation or burdensome requirements - I see no chance of that passing on its own.

[JimDandy]

True, but that wasn't what was proposed. What was proposed was closer to "If you think it's OK for your state's citizens, it's good enough for all the other citizens"

[Nathan]

Here are some compromises I like:
Repeal the GOPA of 1984 for
Fund a study to see what grade levels would be best to engage our youth about the utility and value of guns in their lives.

Repeal all background checks for
Fund a report which looks into how and why criminals do not get caught by the background check systems and why those wasteful systems should be replaced with prosecuting crime.

National unlicensed carry. . .aka 2nd amendment carry for
Funding gun ownership and gun training for our working class families.

Repeal NFA for studying how to really keep at risk people from turning to crime.

Eliminating the ATF and turning that cost into a tax rebate annually to all tax payers as a reminder of how bad the ATF was.

[Tom Servo]

While it's nice to float wish lists of stuff we want, there are two salient things to remember. The first is that they WILL NOT give us anything we want if they can avoid it. The second is that any concessions they might make will be repealed, or at least legislated into utter uselessness down the road.

If it looks like they've got something with a chance at passage, things like nationwide reciprocity or alterations to the NFA will be appended as poison pills to kill it, with little expectation of success or benefit.

[csmsss]

While it's nice to float wish lists of stuff we want, there are two salient things to remember. The first is that they WILL NOT give us anything we want if they can avoid it. The second is that any concessions they might make will be repealed, or at least legislated into utter uselessness down the road.

If it looks like they've got something with a chance at passage, things like nationwide reciprocity or alterations to the NFA will be appended as poison pills to kill it, with little expectation of success or benefit.Precisely. There will always be provisions in any "offering" to our side that will enable them to easily repeal/defang it at some point in the future.

[Old Grump]

1934 – National Firearms Act
1968 – The Gun Control Act
1986 – Firearms Owners Protection Act
1993 – Brady Handguns Violence Act
1994 – Assault Weapons Ban
1995 – Gun Free School Zones Act

NO MORE COMPROMISING

[Brian Pfleuger]

In the true spirit of compromise, where both sides give up what they really want in exchange for something closer to what the other side wants, I would propose a bill that...

1)Eliminates/nullifies all existing federal level firearms laws.

2)Specifies that the 2A is incorporated against the states so the states have 2 options: 1)Shall Issue Permits based solely on reinstituted NICS check. 2) No permits at all, i.e. Constitutional Carry.

3)NICS check for all firearms transfers between "unknown" persons. Unknown persons defined in a manner similar to the current "prohibited persons" standard, such as seller and buyer have "reasonable history of having known one another, such as but not limited to co-workers, neighbors, relationships between children, etc." All family members out to 3rd cousins, through genetics and marriage, are "known" persons.

4)Prohibited persons are those who have been convicted of a violent crime of some "X" minimum standard and within "X" time period for minor violent crimes, like "mutual combat", i.e. a couple guys got in a fist fight. "Coming to blows" when you're 21 and drunk should not be a life-time prohibition. No other person can be prohibited for any non-violent crime.

I might have more, or modify that list, but it's a start.:)

[dakota.potts]

Yes, Brian, while maybe that is wistful thinking, that is the kind of true compromise I was talking about. Not the supposed compromises listed by Old Grump or similar

[NWPilgrim]

The point of the wish lists is to say that is the only direction in which we will accept compromises. No more compromises from where we are toward more restrictions. Compromise only from where we are back toward pre-1934.