There was another request (at large) for compromise.
I posted a version of this: https://www.democraticunderground.com/126213984
No response to any of MY concerns only a studious ignorance of any of the issues I raise. And of course a complete disregard and failure to refute the assertion that all gunners really want is access to full auto and all other NFA guns over the counter.
I have heard this 'compromise' before. 'Bout 3-4 years ago. Same premise, same rationalization, same writing style. That guy bought a pizza . . .
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
50 Shades Of Blue
(9,906 posts)
msongs
(67,336 posts)AndyS
(14,559 posts)PTWB
(4,131 posts)At no point in my post that you replied to did I suggest removing restrictions on full autos OR making all NFA firearms available ‘over the counter.’
I’m a gun owner trying to get meaningful gun control passed.
If you have a point to make, make it, but do it honestly. There’s no reason to misrepresent what was said.
AndyS
(14,559 posts)MORE access to guns.
As for as full access to NFA firearms there is a studious avoiding of details of what you want from "clarification". Clarify what is meant by "clarification".
This ain't my first rodeo Bud. I've heard this before, almost word for word and I recognize the style.
To reinterate, given the access to firearms today why should there be more and what do you expect from "clarifying" the NFA.
So there, two items for you to address. Don't skip one.
ETA. I'm leaving for the weekend. Be back Monday.
PTWB
(4,131 posts)You don't get attack my points based on things you've invented out of whole cloth and then demand that I address your post point for point. I never suggested that we make all NFA firearms available over the counter. If you'd actually read the post you'd have been able to answer your own question about "clarification."
The only time I used the word clarify in my post that you're referencing is requesting clarification in the language in the NFA that defines what, exactly, constitutes a pistol, rifle, and an AOW. And if you'd read the post you'd know that was referring to two earlier paragraphs that detail a major flaw in the NFA: it is possible to have two identical weapons in every way and one require registration while another does not, based on a check box at the time of purchase.
I'm a gun owner who wants common sense gun control legislation to actually pass. That means universal background checks, safe storage laws, and implementing minimum standards to obtain a concealed carry license. And it's my view that the only way we're ever going to pass those important things is to compromise and negotiate with the firearms community by removing antiquated restrictions that don't make anyone safer and clarifying definitions from the Prohibition Era.
Everyone here can debate what exactly those compromises would entail but at the end of the day we want the same thing.
We've managed to pass nothing meaningful in the way of gun safety legislation since Sandy Hook. Unless there is a seismic change in the political climate, we're unlikely to pass anything in the next decade unless we make an effort to compromise and modernize.
For reference, here's the post in question in it's entirety:
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 does 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.
AndyS
(14,559 posts)treat my concerns as a side 'debate' and address the points I made.
While we're treating this as a separate thread, explain to me why with 400 million guns currently in circulation and 15 million more entering the inventory every year you feel the need to make yet more guns more accessible.
Heading out the door as I type . . .
I'm not going to humor your proposal for a "side debate" when the entire premise of the OP was disingenuous. Once you address the fact that you've misrepresented my position (repeatedly) I'll be happy to humor you and we can debate or discuss whatever you like.
I do find it amusing that you are now suggesting that my proposals to get us universal background checks, safe storage laws, and minimum standards for concealed carry licenses would somehow make guns more accessible.
billh58
(6,635 posts)duly noted, and your intent is obvious.
PTWB
(4,131 posts)I posted my intentions in detail.
billh58
(6,635 posts)You sound like some others who are no longer with us.
PTWB
(4,131 posts)My intent is to get meaningful gun control passed, which is no easy task in this political climate. What’s your intent?
billh58
(6,635 posts)same as Andy's: stop compromising with right-wing gunners and drastically reduce the number of "recreational" guns in this country.
PTWB
(4,131 posts)Perfect is the enemy of good.
I’m going to flat out ask you: did you actually read my proposed compromises? It’s clear that Andy did not. If you did read my proposal, then feel free to respond to specific portions that you find unreasonable.
If all you want to do is rage against guns and gun owners, that’s fine and is your right to do.
What I want is to pass legislation that enacts universal background checks, safe storage laws, and minimum standards for concealed carry. And it’s my belief that based on the lack of progress passing anything gun control related over the last decade, the only way to do so is to negotiate and compromise.
billh58
(6,635 posts)I'm tired of you using this Gun Control Reform Activism Group as a megaphone for your gunner views. Please go back to the RKBA cave and preach to your buddies. Your "proposed compromises" are crap, and would only lead to more guns on the streets.
Bub bye...
