CATO Institute Sells Out RKBA

[roo_ster]

Given that real Americans are getting a mite restless, the ruling class types seem to want, more than ever, to clamp down on gun access for the great unwashed cattle.

http://www.cato.org/policy-report/septemberoctober-2016/gun-control-grounds-compromise

https://thelibertyzone.us/2016/10/03/no-2/

It’s short, it’s sweet, and it’s the only reply that can be given to the CATO Institute’s latest policy report inviting Americans to consider grounds for compromise on gun control. Written by CATO Chairman Robert Levy, who despite listing all the facts that support gun rights’ advocates contentions that gun control cannot and will not reduce crime, still claims there’s room for compromise on the issue.

As if we haven’t been compromising and getting our rights shredded for decades!

[Ron]

Things are getting real, real fast.

Ive been watching the establishment fundamentally transform America right before my eyes for three decades but it seems to be picking up steam.

There are basically no influential institutions left on the side of liberty. They have all been co-opted by a post modern philosophy of culture and politics. Everything is degrees of "progressivism" including the Republican party. Even Trump is nothing more than a progressive who wants to just pause or slow down the inevitable.

Some have woken up from the trance but most are still being programmed by the media complex. I fear it is too late The Trump phenomenon is just a death rattle from those who pine for the idea of the old Republic.

Cthulhu only swims to the left.  

[Hawkmoon]

It may be time to revisit and, if necessary, fine-tune Manchin-Toomey. Buyers with recently issued concealed carry permits would be exempted from background checks, as would transfers by gift or bequest, in-person sales outside gun shows, and buyers responding to unpublished (e.g., bulletin-board) notices. More importantly, interstate handgun purchases from dealers would be legalized, added safeguards would be implemented against a federal registry, the time required to complete a background check would be significantly reduced, and interstate transport rules would be liberalized. Those are consequential benefits.

What would these "added safeguards" be, and how would they be enforced? The feral government has proven time and time again that it doesn't feel constrained to abide by its own laws, and it has also proven time and time again that once it gets its collective hands on data it's virtually impossible to force it (the feral government) to give up said data.

[HankB]

What would these "added safeguards" be, and how would they be enforced? The feral government has proven time and time again that it doesn't feel constrained to abide by its own laws, and it has also proven time and time again that once it gets its collective hands on data it's virtually impossible to force it (the feral government) to give up said data.

I believe the only way there MIGHT be some success in restricting .gov from violating the "added safeguards" is if the law explicitly called out criminal penalties for any and all individual .gov employees (including LEOs, temps, and contractors) who have anything whatsoever to do with violating said safeguards.

Unfortunately, even with explicit criminal penalties called out in the law, our politically co-opted AG, FBI director, and Justice Department will turn a blind eye to the violations anyway.

[MechAg94]

There is room for compromise.  

I have heard it said there are something like 20,000 gun laws.  I would be okay with only getting rid of half of them (this year).  

[RevDisk]

What would these "added safeguards" be, and how would they be enforced? The feral government has proven time and time again that it doesn't feel constrained to abide by its own laws, and it has also proven time and time again that once it gets its collective hands on data it's virtually impossible to force it (the feral government) to give up said data.

Yeah, my state has a law against registries. And yet our State Police have a handgun purchase registry. Which they argue is a sales registry, not a gun registry and it somehow is legal. 

[RoadKingLarry]

Compromise.
They keep using that word. I don't think it means what they want it to mean.

[Northwoods]

There is room for compromise. 

I have heard it said there are something like 20,000 gun laws.  I would be okay with only getting rid of half of them (this year). 

^^^ Yeah.  That.

[Hawkmoon]

Unfortunately, even with explicit criminal penalties called out in the law, our politically co-opted AG, FBI director, and Justice Department will turn a blind eye to the violations anyway.

Correct. And that's why we don't need no steenkin' background checks.

[Scout26]

I got this from the Illinois State Rifle Association's Thursday Bulletin E-mail today:

My friend, Jim Wallace, the Executive Director of the Gun Owners Action League (GOAL in Massachusetts) always points out there are three areas of concern involving firearms.  The first is gun safety.  Gun owners and gun organizations are in charge of gun safety and in all honesty, we do a great job.  We pay for it out of our own pocket or through dues to our various organizations.  The second and third areas of concern are crime and mental health.  The government is in charge of those two items.  The government has unlimited money and authority, yet crime is on the rise, fueled mostly by drugs and drug gangs.  Both the drugs and criminals swarm across borders and we are seeing individuals and families being ripped apart by drugs and the gangs who deliver them.  The government isn't doing such a hot job with crime, maybe you have noticed.  The government is also in charge of mental health, which includes suicide prevention.  I don't think that is going too well either.  We have mentally ill people wandering around on the streets, some of who are dangerous.  We are told "they are better off" being out in public.  The question I have is, are we better off?  I think not.

And I completely agree.  The .gov has proven itself incompetent (if not outright evil) in every area.  Why should we give them any more power or authority in any area.  They need to be giving it back to the states or the people respectively (unfortunately, that will probably cost blood and treasure to make that happen.   )

[Hawkmoon]

Yeah, my state has a law against registries. And yet our State Police have a handgun purchase registry. Which they argue is a sales registry, not a gun registry and it somehow is legal.  

Yeah, you're in Pennsylvania, right?

The other wrinkle to that is that LEOs like to check guns against the registry-that's-not-a-registry (because the court acknowledged that it's not a complete enough database to be a registry) and confiscate the gun(s) if it/they aren't on the list. They then require the owner to provide proof of ownership before they'll return them. You don't need to be a criminal suspect for this to happen -- some LEOs will run your gun at a traffic stop.

I might be able to find a receipt or bill of sale for some of my handguns. For most of the, I'd have to just kiss it goodbye.

[Scout26]

Yeah, my state has a law against registries. And yet our State Police have a handgun purchase registry. Which they argue is a sales registry, not a gun registry and it somehow is legal. 

Illinois has something similar.  Since our NICS checks are done through our State Police, they at least know how many handguns and long guns you own (unless you bought them "off-paper" prior to 1 Jan of this year when they required everyone to call in all gun transfers, and not just sales.  Plus there's been a law on the books for quite a while that you have to keep records of any "transfers" of firearms for 10 years...which I don't think anyone really does.)

[De Selby]

I actually think this is a good direction.  There is much merit in exploring pro gun regulation that will actually help avoid crimes and massacres.

The fundamental problem is that most of the debate is about how to track and handle the guns.  That is a complete waste of time and can only generate red tape.

If gun control shifted to licensing people, there are some serious gains to be had there both for gun owners and people who want control.

Imagine if instead of a check when you buy, and a traceable system, you applied for a licence one time and that licence let you possess and buy with abandon.  When cops or mental professionals end up dealing with a bad egg, they don't need to search a gun registry or set up a flag - just check if there's a licence.  Revoke it and look for guns if needed.  Everyone else who buys and sells guns now only needs to know that person doesn't have a licence.

If you make it easy to obtain and verify, it also gives gun owners a convenient way to spot bad sales.

[Northwoods]

And that A) tells the .gov exactly who (legally) owns guns which simplifies eventual confiscation, and B) it's still giving the .gov a means to deny a civil right by just redefining who is eligible for the license.

[Perd Hapley]

Imagine if instead of a check when you buy, and a traceable system...

...we just had a system that adequately punished actual crimes?

[De Selby]

And that A) tells the .gov exactly who (legally) owns guns which simplifies eventual confiscation, and B) it's still giving the .gov a means to deny a civil right by just redefining who is eligible for the license.

A). Already exists.

B) is even more true of what we have now.

[De Selby]

...we just had a system that adequately punished actual crimes?

That won't solve any of the problems controls seek to address.  It's great, but not going to get us anywhere.

[Scout26]

I actually think this is a good direction.  There is much merit in exploring pro gun regulation that will actually help avoid crimes and massacres.

The fundamental problem is that most of the debate is about how to track and handle the guns.  That is a complete waste of time and can only generate red tape.

If gun control shifted to licensing people, there are some serious gains to be had there both for gun owners and people who want control.

Imagine if instead of a check when you buy, and a traceable system, you applied for a licence one time and that licence let you possess and buy with abandon.  When cops or mental professionals end up dealing with a bad egg, they don't need to search a gun registry or set up a flag - just check if there's a licence.  Revoke it and look for guns if needed.  Everyone else who buys and sells guns now only needs to know that person doesn't have a licence.

If you make it easy to obtain and verify, it also gives gun owners a convenient way to spot bad sales.

And what if that .gov took it's sweet-ass time issuing said license or decides it's not going to issue them because of "budget cuts", "no budget" or "reasons"?  And what if .gov changed it's mind and only let you buy X number of guns in Y time period?  And what if ~90% of courts don't forward revocations to the State Police to have said card pulled?   And what if you can't get a license and there's no reason why, nor will they tell you why you were denied, because they don't have to?  And what if even with that license, you STILL have to call in every transfer to the State Police?

Plus there's that handy list of gun owners so when it does come time to confiscate, just print the list and go door-to-door.  

That's called "Illinois".


Can De Selby, since you are a lawyer, can you point out where the word "license" or "permit" or "card" appears in the Second Amendment?

[De Selby]

Scout, you solve those problems with legislation - just like NICS.  Government could always decide to do something bad but that's not a reason to resist sensible policy -  a government that wants to ban guns will.

The constitution has never stood for the proposition that all encumbrances on the exercise of a right are prohibited.  For example, you can't just wave the cinstitution at a polling booth and demand to vote with no id.

This would be a simple policy that could vastly improve the ease of you owning guns, and help stop nuts and criminals from getting them.

[Scout26]

Scout, you solve those problems with legislation - just like NICS.  Government could always decide to do something bad but that's not a reason to resist sensible policy -  a government that wants to ban guns will.

That's what .govs do.  They do Bad.  Look at (f)Great Britain and Australia.  "Sensible Policy" is just a stepping stone.  And since when is .gov compelled to follow it's own laws when they can change or ignore them at any time?  Again, Illinois is an example.  The law says we have to have a balanced budget by 1 June.  We haven't even had a budget since 31 May 2014.  The law has been broken, but there's no enforcement mechanism.  Not one elected official is in jail or standing trial.  It's a farce. 

The constitution has never stood for the proposition that all encumbrances on the exercise of a right are prohibited. 

"...shall not be infringed."  Please explain what that means counselor.

For example, you can't just wave the cinstitution at a polling booth and demand to vote with no id.

You sure can in Illinois with our new same day registration and voting.  You can register and vote (Same Day !!) by just showing a credit card with your name on it and an e-mail from any jamoke that says you live at X address.  And tell me that isn't ripe for voter fraud.  (Law passed by our supermajority Democrat House and Senate !!)

This would be a simple policy that could vastly improve the ease of you owning guns, and help stop nuts and criminals from getting them.

That's what was said about NFA '34, GCA '68, AWB '94, the Brady Bill/NICS and every other of the 20,000+ gun laws passed.   Look at Chicago and tell me that Illinois' FOID Act is doing anything to stop or slow down the shootings and killings there.   Because that Law is EXACTLY what you are proposing.  In Illinois you MUST have an FOID Card (Firearm Owners ID, can take up to 6 months to get one because reasons.  Can be denied and you can't sue to find out why) issued by the Illinois State Police to possess or own or even purchase a Firearm and/or ammunition.  And you still have to go through a ISP background check AND a waiting period (24 hours: long guns; 72 hours: hand guns) on firearm purchases.

What you are proposing

DOESN'T.

*expletive deleted*ing.

WORK.


Chicago is the proof of failure of your policy.

[Boomhauer]

I actually think this is a good direction.  There is much merit in exploring pro gun regulation that will actually help avoid crimes and massacres.

The fundamental problem is that most of the debate is about how to track and handle the guns.  That is a complete waste of time and can only generate red tape.

If gun control shifted to licensing people, there are some serious gains to be had there both for gun owners and people who want control.

Imagine if instead of a check when you buy, and a traceable system, you applied for a licence one time and that licence let you possess and buy with abandon.  When cops or mental professionals end up dealing with a bad egg, they don't need to search a gun registry or set up a flag - just check if there's a licence.  Revoke it and look for guns if needed.  Everyone else who buys and sells guns now only needs to know that person doesn't have a licence.

If you make it easy to obtain and verify, it also gives gun owners a convenient way to spot bad sales.

I actually think this is a good direction.  There is much merit in exploring pro gun regulation that will actually help avoid crimes and massacres.

The fundamental problem is that most of the debate is about how to track and handle the guns.  That is a complete waste of time and can only generate red tape.

If gun control shifted to licensing people, there are some serious gains to be had there both for gun owners and people who want control.

Imagine if instead of a check when you buy, and a traceable system, you applied for a licence one time and that licence let you possess and buy with abandon.  When cops or mental professionals end up dealing with a bad egg, they don't need to search a gun registry or set up a flag - just check if there's a licence.  Revoke it and look for guns if needed.  Everyone else who buys and sells guns now only needs to know that person doesn't have a licence.

If you make it easy to obtain and verify, it also gives gun owners a convenient way to spot bad sales.

And I think people like you should be have to be subject to a background check and licensing before you are allowed to open your mouth and say the stupid *expletive deleted*ing *expletive deleted*it you like to spout.

What part of "Shall Not Be Infringed" isn't clear?

[MechAg94]

That won't solve any of the problems controls seek to address.  It's great, but not going to get us anywhere.

Actually, criminal punishment can solve a lot of problems.  Most federal weapons charges never get prosecuted unless they are tacked on with other crimes.  It is not a priority for federal prosecutors so they don't pursue it.  There are examples in the last 20 or 30 years of federal prosecutors going after every federal weapons charge in a particular area which resulted in taking a lot of armed felons off the streets for significant prison time.  Those were typically special situations pushed by political efforts and didn't last.  The same failure to prosecute smaller crimes occurs in big cities.  Failure to prosecute low level crime only leads to more higher level crime.

The reality is the big money people pushing gun control are not really interested in criminal control.  This is why none of their proposals actually accomplish that goal.  

You can see it when you look at areas largely controlled by liberals versus others areas.  The leftist liberals are generally only interested in control.  Higher crime is not a problem to them as they live in rich neighborhoods and have guards.  It only makes people more dependent on them and their law enforcement groups.  The only problem are those pesky, interfering people who think they should defend themselves and actually stop crime.

[Perd Hapley]

That won't solve any of the problems controls seek to address.  It's great, but not going to get us anywhere.

Living in a free country is not a problem to be solved, but a goal to be attained.

[roo_ster]

Nutballs with guns is not the problem.  The number of folks they kill is in the noise.  The problem is sane people in gov't with guns.

[Hawkmoon]

If gun control shifted to licensing people, there are some serious gains to be had there both for gun owners and people who want control.

Imagine if instead of a check when you buy, and a traceable system, you applied for a licence one time and that licence let you possess and buy with abandon.  When cops or mental professionals end up dealing with a bad egg, they don't need to search a gun registry or set up a flag - just check if there's a licence.  Revoke it and look for guns if needed.  Everyone else who buys and sells guns now only needs to know that person doesn't have a licence.

If you make it easy to obtain and verify, it also gives gun owners a convenient way to spot bad sales.

The Constitution guarantees us (supposedly) the "right" to keep and bear arms. Why should I have to obtain a license to exercise a "right" that is guaranteed to me by the Constitution?