Gun law "compromises"

[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/...3gC2JJD: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/LI...n=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]

Originally Posted by JimDandy

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.