Compromising with gun owners is the ONLY feasible path to passing meaningful gun control

[PTWB]

I apologize in advance as this will be a lengthy post. Much of this post comes from a reply another thread but I wanted to bring it here for further discussion.

We’re all Democrats here and most of us are logical, thoughtful people. Those of us who do own firearms and support the current interpretation of the 2nd Amendment (recognizing an individual right to keep and bear arms) also recognize that rights are not unlimited. We can both support the 2nd Amendment and advocate for common sense, effective gun control that doesn’t violate the 2nd Amendment and doesn’t violate due process.

My goal here is to create a discussion about how to formulate and pass meaningful gun control in today’s political climate.

The last decade should be a playbook of what not to do. Don't threaten mandatory gun buybacks, all out bans, registries, or anything else that will 1. not pass and 2. reduce the chance of passing anything else.

Forcing gun control legislation through sheer force of will and emotion is simply not going to work. If it was going to work, we would have passed something meaningful after Sandy Hook.

My proposal is to compromise with gun owners in order to pass meaningful gun control.

If we do not compromise with gun owners there is zero chance of anything passing until there is a seismic shift in the political climate.

Many of our gun laws are antiquated and ineffective. There are laws from the Prohibition Era that needlessly burden gun owners and add nothing to the general safety of society. There are scores of completely ineffective (from a public safety standpoint) gun laws on the books that are burdensome and loathed by the gun community.

Get rid of the laws that don’t work or don’t do anything to enhance public safety. Trade them for effective and modern gun control solutions that are relatively popular and will be more effective at saving lives. Meaningful gun control reform needs to work with, not against, gun owners.

There are numerous things that the gun community wants and would be willing to negotiate to obtain. These things include national reciprocity for concealed carry licenses, a revamp of the antiquated NFA registration system and modernizing what types of weapons must be registered. Some of the requirements are completely arbitrary.

For example, you can purchase a short-barrel AR-15 pistol with a brace that is essentially identical to a short-barreled rifle but does not require registration. For all intents and purposes, they're the same gun.

Another example is that you can purchase an AR-15 pistol and convert it into a rifle by adding a buttstock (assuming the barrel length is 16 inches or greater), but cannot purchase an AR-15 rifle and convert it into a pistol by removing the buttstock, even though in both configurations the firearm is identical in every way. The only difference is whether the box 'pistol' or 'rifle' was checked at the time of purchase.

These types of antiquated regulations do not enhance public safety and are simply annoying and burdensome to lawful gun owners. There is no reason to keep them so why not barter with them?


Minimum Standards for Concealed Carry Licenses

My proposal would be to add minimum standards (training, testing, background check, & set renewal periods) at the federal level for states to grant concealed carry licenses to residents. Any state that meets or exceeds those minimum standards would then enjoy national reciprocity for such licenses. We do the same thing with driver's licenses which is why your license in New York lets you drive in Florida, and vice versa.

Creating these national minimum standards two things: it raises the bar to get a concealed carry license and it protects licensed carriers in states that otherwise may not recognize their license.


Mandatory Safe Storage Laws

Mandate that guns must be kept in a secure, locked safe or facility that is inaccessible to minors or prohibited persons whether inside or outside the home, unless being actively carried by, or in the immediate control of, a licensee.


Universal Background Checks


Mandate that every gun transfer is subject to a background check, whether that transfer is through a dealer or a private party. We'd have to streamline this process for cases where a family member is inheriting a large number of firearms from a collector, for example, but it wouldn't be hard to do. This would eliminate the 'gun show loophole' and give us another effective tool to combat straw purchasing.

I'd also add more red flags for violent misdemeanors and give folks who are subject to those red flags a streamlined and free-of-charge process to dispute those flags. We want the red flags to be effective and comprehensive without violating due process.


Compromises to Achieve Universal Background Checks, Safe Storage Laws & Concealed Carry Minimum Standards

In exchange for the new gun control laws, I'd suggest removing sound suppressors from the NFA and treating them like firearms--subject to the now universal background checks. I'd also suggest rewording much of the language in the NFA to remove the ambiguity (the ATF currently defines a shoestring as a machine gun, sometimes, for example) and clarify exactly what constitutes a pistol, a rifle, any other weapon, and modernize the entire registration process for NFA items so that these things don't take over a year to register.

The minimum standards for concealed carry licensees inherently grants reciprocity, which is a big selling point. We get bonafide standards that must be met to carry a weapon and they get reciprocity.

I'd also change the $200 per NFA tax stamp to a one-time, lifetime, $200 NFA license tax. The current tax disproportionately negatively impacts minorities and the impoverished.

Some folks may balk at the delisting of suppressors from the NFA and of national concealed carry reciprocity, but I think they're reasonable bargaining chips and are worth trading for universal background checks, minimum standards for concealed carry, and mandatory safe storage.

At the end of the day, we'll have meaningful gun control and gun owners will be happier.

[pwb]

1. I would be happy if a law was passed that prohibits a round in the chamber.

It only takes seconds to chamber a round. A gun can not go off accidentally with no round in the chamber. Responsible gun owners know this. But the irresponsible owners would be against even something as easy as this.

[abqtommy]

3. As I read the original op I thought about the difference between Responsible Gun

Owners and Irresponsible Gun Owners. There is a big difference and literally all our
problems come from the Irresponsibles.

[Dial H For Hero]

4. If it's irresponsible to carry a round in the chamber, why does law enforcement do so?

[pwb]

7. You are always looking for a fight.

You have no answers and question advice? I know cops who don't chamber a round. Hell I bet some police chiefs require it for safety.

[Dial H For Hero]

8. I disagree with most on this forum on this particular issue, and am not hesitant to explain why.

I would hardly call that "looking for a fight". If anything, it's those whose latest battle cry is "F--k gun owners" who are looking to fight, yes?

You have no answers and question advice? I know cops who don't chamber a round. Hell I bet some police chiefs require it for safety.

I have all sorts of answers. Ask away. As for this particular one, a handgun being carried for self defense should always have a round chambered whenever it is within one's control. Modern handguns are perfectly safe to carry this way as long as the 4 Rules are followed, and the few seconds it takes to chamber the round could, in a life or death situation, be the difference between being a victim and being victorious.

Regarding the police, every single one I've known of whom I asked carried a round in chamber. Are there PD's that don't? Almost certainly....but the vast majority do.

[pwb]

10. Yeah see, you are even against safety.

One question? Are you ever wrong about guns?

[Dial H For Hero]

11. How is emphasizing the need for the 4 rules of gun safety against safety?

I would also point out that the vast majority of firearm self defense classes instruct their students to carry a round in the chamber. Are all of them (and the vast majority of law enforcement, for that matter) against safety?

One question? Are you ever wrong about guns?

On factual matters (on this forum) it's quite rare...but should I be shown to be incorrect, I will readily acknowledge the error.

On matters of policy, though, there is no objective "right" or "wrong", just opinion.

[pwb]

12. I would walk out if someone suggested a round in the chamber.

Self defense firearm instructors are extreme on purpose. A safety firearm instructor may feel differently. Depends on who you listen to.

[Dial H For Hero]

13. Given that, there would be no point in you attending such a class, given that they almost

universally recommend it.

Self defense firearm instructors are extreme on purpose.

Not in my experience. A great deal of emphasis is placed on avoiding conflict in the first place, and of the consequences of using deadly force.

[pwb]

14. Yeah I don't need any lessons.

I have used almost every weapon the army had at my time. I have been on the receiving end of automatic weapons too, so there's that. Later Hero.

[Dial H For Hero]

19. The use of weapons in combat and the use of firearms in legal self defense have some overlap, but

not as much as many think.

In any case, I do thank you for your service and wish you the best.

[oneshooter]

33. So why do you think that makes you special?

Eight years USMC. Rifleman, Teacher, one tour RVN. Been shot at, been shot, have commanded troops in battle, got scars. SO WHAT MAKES YOU SO SPECIAL?

[pwb]

39. Who said I was special? You did.

I don't care what you did in the marines. The poster thought I needed lessons with weapons, I don't.

[oneshooter]

40. Never said that you were "special".

Simply pointing out that you are NOT. Anybody who did a hitch in the military can say the same.

[pwb]

41. And you think you are?

Even without a CAR. Or did you forget to mention that in your need for recognition.

[oneshooter]

47. Never said or claimed that I was.

The poster apparently believes that he is special because of his service. He is no more special than any other veteran.

[oneshooter]

48. Never said or claimed that I was.

The poster apparently believes that he is special because of his service. He is no more special than any other veteran.

[pwb]

49. You assumed that I thought I was special. You said

why do you think you are so special? As if you know what I think? I spoke of experience with weapons is what I did. Thank you for 8 years service to Uncle Sam. I have 27 years service. Try not to make things up. It takes away from the discussion.
Apparently the poster believes? come on, now your a mind reader? I know who I am and I don't announce my Military experience, I doubt others reading this will think I am the one who thinks they are special. All this back and forth over the half second it takes to chamber a round.

[Dial H For Hero]

42. I actually recommended that you *not* take firearms self defense lessons, if you'll recall.

[pwb]

43. I don't need your recommendations. Thank you.

I think of shooting at targets or hunting animals for food. You and all your self defense talk makes me feel you think more of humans as targets. Self defense firearms training and firearms Safety instructors are two different things. I won't recommend you take a safety course. As you feel leaving the chamber empty is not a good idea. The O P was about new ideas and that was mine. You don't agree so here we are. I have owned weapons for 60 years and never once though of people as targets.

[Dial H For Hero]

44. Just trying to help!

I think of shooting at targets or hunting animals for food. You and all your self defense talk makes me feel you think more of humans as targets.

Some humans are legitimate targets, are they not? And in any case, this is Gun Control & RKBA. Target shooting and hunting would actually be off topic here. Statement of Purpose: Discuss gun politics, gun control laws, the Second Amendment, the use of firearms for self-defense, and the use of firearms to commit crime and violence.

Self defense firearms training and firearms Safety instructors are two different things. I won't recommend you take a safety course. As you feel leaving the chamber empty is not a good idea. The O P was about new ideas and that was mine. You don't agree so here we are.

I've already taken a hunter safety course. The issue of carrying a round in the chamber of a handgun being used for self defense was never addressed, of course.

Every self defense class I've taken has recommended a round in the chamber.

I have owned weapons for 60 years and never once though of people as targets.

That seems a very odd thing for you to say, given that earlier in this thread you said:

I have used almost every weapon the army had at my time. I have been on the receiving end of automatic weapons too, so there's that

Were not the weapons you fired while in the Army were either being used in training (to practice shooting at people) or in combat (to actually shoot at people)?

[pwb]

45. I am just not ready for War a home.

I assume you know the difference between military and civilian behavior. Maybe seeing the results of death by humans had changed me. I have never toughed an automatic weapon since carrying one 24/7/365. My Remington pump is the fastest weapon I have now. I am just not as frightened as most people I guess. I will take my chances unarmed everyday.

[Dial H For Hero]

46. Neither am I. War and legitimate self defense are two very different things.

As for being frightened, having an accessible firearm at home no more means I'm frightened than having a fire extinguisher does. And for what it's worth, I'm typically unarmed when outside the home.

[PTWB]

54. Haven't you heard?

Only frightened people wear their seatbelt.

[PTWB]

25. Here's a good debate about that topic.

ASP is a decent channel if you can stomach the overt Christian preaching that occasionally pops up.

The attorney recommends you carry without a round chambered in most circumstances. I don't agree with all of his points but that's because I don't think that someone should be carrying a weapon at all if they're not well trained and proficient with that weapon.

[Dial H For Hero]

26. There's a legitimate debate to be had, but labeling anyone "irresponsible" and "unsafe" because they

carry a round chambered is absurd

[PTWB]

51. Certainly absurd.

Blanket statements like that don't help anyone or anything.

I'd rather someone not carry a firearm at all if they feel that they're not responsible enough with their firearm to have a round in the chamber.

[oneshooter]

32. Would you please answer the question.

You need to back up your answers with "facts". Otherwise it is just your opinion, and can be dismissed as such.

[Dial H For Hero]

2. A thoughtful, reasonable proposal. On this forum, it will go nowhere.

When the go to response of the other side is to shout "F--k gun owners", coming to a meeting of minds is impossible.

I would also point out that their definition of compromise is now "We'll only take some of your guns".

[atreides1]

5. Interesting

But, the question that needs to be answered is: ARE GUN OWNERS WILLING TO COMPROMISE???

Perhaps initially...at least until the gun manufacturers and the NRA begin their campaign of how this is nothing but an elaborate trick to attack and diminish the 2nd Amendment...


It's a good and balanced op, but it relies on the belief that those on the other side of this issue think that there is a need for compromise!!!

[Cartoonist]

6. You sound like Manchin

He's still looking for a compromise from republicans on voting rights.

[Ferryboat]

9. OP has made some good points

You have to compromise to get where you want to go. Reasonable gun owners understand the need for tighter laws nationwide. Most would be willing to listen.

Although I would add individual liability insurance should be under consideration.

[AndyS]

15. A reasonable person is supposed to compromise with this?

Gunners have:

More guns than people in the US. Sixty-five times more guns than all the military and all the police forces in the country combined.

Legal protection for gun sellers, makers and distributors from civil suits. The only industry with such protection.

Unfettered access to guns without a background check. They're called 80% receivers and are available on the internet to ANYONE. Even a 13 year old can buy and assemble a gun kit.

'Must issue' licenses and concealed carry permits. No human intervention regardless of local and familial concerns.

Guaranteed purchase of a gun in 3 days even if the background check hasn't been completed by a system that doesn't even report all agencies to the background data base.

Over the counter retail access to military grade weaponry that can be easily and legally converted to emulate full auto machine guns. Bump stocks are on again/off again legal and auto-sear/forced-reset trigger assemblies haven't been addressed.

100 round magazines available over the internet with no background check to go with those converted full auto guns some of which were assembled from 80% receivers with no background check.

Thirteen states have 'constitutional carry' with no restrictions on concealed or open carry, many with no background checks or training.

Thirty eight states have 'stand your ground' laws allowing anyone who feels threatened to shoot another person without the responsibility to retreat if possible. Note the words “feels threatened”.

Those are just the highlights of what I'm supposed to compromise with. What do you want for a compromise? Let me just cut to the chase. To repeal the NFA entirely and allow full auto, sawed off shotguns, short barrel rifles (and any other gun that can be easily concealed and kill 49 and injure 53 like at the Pulse Nightclub) as well as various explosives.

I think I know you from a previous life. Someone here about 4 years ago promoted the same 'compromise' using identical language and identical rationalization. Back then we'd send out for pizza.

[PTWB]

16. Back again?

I like how you didn’t even read my post. The things you said I wanted to compromise with aren’t in my post at all. Good try though, friend!

Edit: I see this is just a generic copy and paste job from something you posted in another forum and has nothing to do with my post.

[AndyS]

17. It has only important thing you want. Good bye.

[PTWB]

18. Have a good one bud.

We will be here discussing what we can do to actually pass gun control and you’re free to join us at any time.

It’s funny to me that the RKBA supporters here are actually interested in passing universal background checks, safe storage laws, and raising the bar for what it takes to get a concealed carry license. Self-proclaimed gun grabbers are content to rant, rave, and hurl insults while getting nothing done.

I told a gun grabber this the other day but it bears repeating: the victims of the next mass shooting will surely take solace in your righteous indignation and refusal to compromise.

My conscience will be clear. Will yours?

[Dial H For Hero]

21. I actually have come up with what I (humbly) think would be a reasonable compromise.

Last edited Thu Dec 16, 2021, 09:54 PM - Edit history (1)

1) A license to own firearms. It would have multiple levels.
A) Any manually operated long gun. Said license would be no more difficult to obtain than the current ATF instant background check.
B) Handguns. License would require a similar background check, as well as a training course. Details to be hashed out. Would allow legal concealed carry nationwide.
C) Semiautomatic long guns. Background check, separate training course.
D) Full auto. More extensive background check and training course.

2) Note that the above includes universal background checks.

3) Also registration.

In return:

1) All licenses would have explicit guarantees as to reasonable cost and not having unreasonable training requirements. Licenses can be combined, each renewable every 5 years.

2) Repeal of the NFA, with SBRs and full autos treated as above. No background check for suppressors other than requiring license A or higher.

3) All magazine and "assault weapons" restrictions repealed.

And before the shouts of outrage from the other side begin, l would point out that I can already obtain everything with the exception of NFA items in most states with less paperwork under current law than I could under this proposal, and can still (and have) gotten NFA items should I be willing to put up with the red tape.

Any takers?

(Slightly edited to correct a poorly worded sentence)

[PTWB]

23. I don't think anyone could argue against that.

You're essentially revamping the NFA into a licensing system with integrated background checks / training requirements and eliminating the antiquated portions that don't add to safety. That's quite reasonable.

[Dial H For Hero]

27. Thank you, but I'm confident that they can and will. The moment "assault weapons" are mentioned,

the door slams shut. I don't post it with any hope of persuading the other side.

It's amusing that they're calling us fanatics when we offer more gun control than has passed in over half a century. Universal background checks, registration, licenses, training. The standard reaction to offering all of that and then asking "So what do we get in return?" is:



Still, I'm willing to be proven wrong. I'll post my proposal here as an OP tomorrow. I think GD is off-topic for general gun issues at the moment, if I'm not mistaken..

[oneshooter]

35. Gunowners will not agree with ANY of this. EOM

[Dial H For Hero]

37. On the whole I agree. It's simply a thought experiment. Both sides are far too entrenched for any

compromise or consensus.

[yagotme]

38. You have some overblown/incorrect statements here:

"More guns than people in the US. Sixty-five times more guns than all the military and all the police forces in the country combined."
And, I'm amazed, that if guns cause crime, and every "gunner" is a criminal in waiting, how the murder rate is so low.

"Legal protection for gun sellers, makers and distributors from civil suits. The only industry with such protection."
Because the pedal-to-the-metal gun grabbers were trying to force legitimate manufacturers out of business, 'cuz they didn't like the product.

"Unfettered access to guns without a background check. They're called 80% receivers and are available on the internet to ANYONE. Even a 13 year old can buy and assemble a gun kit."
Wrong. 80% kits are NOT firearms, just hunks of metal that need another 20% of MACHINING to make them an actual receiver. A 13 yr old CANNOT buy one of these and assemble a gun from a kit. Receiver has to be finished, first.

"'Must issue' licenses and concealed carry permits. No human intervention regardless of local and familial concerns."
"May issue" has become a concern, because in several areas of May Issue, you have to BE somebody/know somebody to get a permit. Elitism at it's best. And, as far as IL, background checks are done before issuing a permit, as I bet other areas do, too.

"Guaranteed purchase of a gun in 3 days even if the background check hasn't been completed by a system that doesn't even report all agencies to the background data base."
Again, this goes to the radical grabbers, who used the delay to deny sales as long as possible. Here in IL, an approval (Pre-Covid) could be received in minutes. You still had to wait the delay period, but your approval was sometimes almost instantaneous.

"Over the counter retail access to military grade weaponry that can be easily and legally converted to emulate full auto machine guns. Bump stocks are on again/off again legal and auto-sear/forced-reset trigger assemblies haven't been addressed."
"Military grade weaponry, over the counter, then convert." Did you read that sentence after you typed it? If it's military grade, it is already converted (and not sold OTC. Need Class 4 license.). And, if you're talking about the AR-15, if you convert it to full auto without BATF paperwork, it is NOT legal. A bump stock is a plastic device, mounted to the rear of a semi auto rifle, that uses recoil/shooters finger to reset the trigger. Legality of it being a "firearm" has led to much debate. And the drop-in auto sears, last I heard, were a no-no, per BATF.

"100 round magazines available over the internet with no background check to go with those converted full auto guns some of which were assembled from 80% receivers with no background check."
So, what would you accept as "standard" magazine? 30? 20? 10? 5?

"Thirteen states have 'constitutional carry' with no restrictions on concealed or open carry, many with no background checks or training."
And, the death toll from those particular states must be staggering...

"Thirty eight states have 'stand your ground' laws allowing anyone who feels threatened to shoot another person without the responsibility to retreat if possible. Note the words “feels threatened”."
Yes, and if you shoot someone while you "feel threatened", you need to be able to prove it in a court of law.

[Hangingon]

50. This is why any compromise legislation has an uphill fight.

Nothing passed will ever be enough. We will hear , “It’s a good start. Now we need ….” Or any thing less than total ban , collection of privately arms and total control of production.

[Scrivener7]

20. No gun control advocate would disagree with any of these. Gun humpers have already

shot many of these measures down on many occasions.

Now what?

[Dial H For Hero]

22. Gun control advocates certainly do disagree with the compromises listed at the end of the OP.

Now what?

[PTWB]

24. Nonsense.

This has never been proposed in the context of negotiating and compromising. They've shot down universal background checks and safe storage laws when nothing was being offered in exchange. This proposal offers things that the gun community has been champing at the bit to get passed for many years in exchange for some meaningful gun control legislation.

The only folks I see here balking at these compromises are the gun grabbers who would prefer to maintain their righteous indignation than to even attempt to get anything passed that might save some lives. That, my friend, is telling.

[Scrivener7]

28. LOL! Poor, poor gun humpers. Their rights are always being trampled, and we should offer them

things to make them actually take some responsibility for the tens of thousands of deaths that result from their deadly little hobby and that result from their irresponsibility as a group. It isn't enough that there are almost no laws that regulate their deadly little hobby! They are discriminated against, I tell you!

And can you imagine! Some are indignant about those tens of thousands of yearly deaths. The nerve! We just need to give the gun humpers stuff and maybe they'll agree to background checks! If we only compromise with them, maybe they will agree to rescinding the gun rights to men who have been convicted of domestic abuse! Though for that one we'll need to pay off their mortgage or something. Because right to bear arms, I tells ya! Right to bear arms!

[PTWB]

29. What does this have to do with your first post in this thread?

LOL

You proclaimed "no gun control advocate would disagree with any of these!" When it was brought to your attention that it's already happened (in this very thread) you post this rant out of nowhere.

Wanna start over and try again?

[Scrivener7]

30. No, dear. You are using the disagreement in this thread to say, "See? They are terrible

to us! We can't work with them!"

As if working with them was the issue. As if there was any meaningful restriction to your little hobby.

I should have known better, because there is no sense in having a discussion with fearful, compensatory men about their little hobby. They cannot cede any ground about their guns because none of it is, really, about their guns.

[PTWB]

34. I think you may be confused.

I've never said "See? They are terrible to us! We can't work with them!" -- I'm not sure why you're attributing that quote to me. Not only have I not said that, I've not said anything remotely close to that.

To recap, you claimed: "No gun control advocate would disagree with any of these. Gun humpers have already shot many of these measures down on many occasions."

I pointed out that in this very thread we have gun control advocates disagreeing with these suggestions. We also have gun owners who are promoting these suggestions.

It's OK to admit you made a mistake, my friend.

[Dial H For Hero]

31. See what I mean?

They have neither the temperament nor capability to discuss the issue rationally, resorting to playground insults rather than trying to engage in a meaningful discussion.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

52. Just being realistic...

...state concealed carry status 9 years ago:



And today:



There's now 5 times as many unrestricted states.
Why should pro-RKBA and pro-restriction compromise? Just to be realistic.

[PTWB]

53. Because we all get what we want if we compromise in the ways I suggested.

Gun control advocates get meaningful gun safety legislation passed (unthinkable in todays political climate without compromise) and gun owners get several long desired benefits and quality of life enhancements.

Everyone wins.