CATO Institute Sells Out RKBA

[De Selby]

Balog, I agree that it could, possibly, maybe, hopefully be a better system if it was done right. ......................And Communism would work real well if only the right people were in charge. 

If we could replace all the current federal gun laws and replace them with a new simple system, that would be great.  I just don't think anything approaching that is likely to make it through Congress in this day and age.  It might start out as a good bill, but by the time it passed, it would be a mess and likely worse than current laws.  No regulation is a better outcome than what would likely occur. 

Except that no regulation isn't an option.  Never going to happen.  My point is it's smart to support reforms that improve what we have

[Hawkmoon]

Except that no regulation isn't an option.  Never going to happen.  My point is it's smart to support reforms that improve what we have

But so far you haven't proposed any reforms that would improve what we have now. It might make little difference to people in places like Chicago, New York City, New Jersey, and California but, for the majority of the states, your proposal is several giant steps in the wrong direction.

And that's ignoring the fact that criminals don't buy their guns at gun shops anyway, so your sceme would have essentially no effect in the real world.

[Fitz]

Except that no regulation isn't an option.  Never going to happen.  My point is it's smart to support reforms that improve what we have

How would getting the feds involved in tinkering with something that's already pretty GOOD for me in texas, be any better than what we have.

You have yet to explain how it would be better.

[De Selby]

How would getting the feds involved in tinkering with something that's already pretty GOOD for me in texas, be any better than what we have.

You have yet to explain how it would be better.

Because it replaces what happens with your guns every time, with a system that allows you to own and trade in them no matter where bought.

[Boomhauer]

I can only assume that you think we are all stupid or something.

Clearly he does. Not just in this thread but in most that he posts in. If you take a stand against being in a union or not wanting socialized medicine he will ridicule you as you are too stupid to not know what is good for you. If you are against welfare due to the massive fraud you know exists because you have witnessed it your entire life he'll call you racist and tell you that it doesn't exist. Not a believer in the AGW fanaticism? He will call you ignorant as he did in the last thread about global warming

[MechAg94]

Because it replaces what happens with your guns every time, with a system that allows you to own and trade in them no matter where bought.

But the govt still decides who has a gun leaving the door wide open for abuse.  AND the biggest Negative is it gets the general public as a whole used to the idea that Big Brother FedGov SHOULD vet and approve all gun purchases.  

You also didn't address liability for someone if they sold a gun without checking for the new gun license.  

I want to get away from Govt approving gun transactions, no matter how it is done.

[MechAg94]

Except that no regulation isn't an option.  Never going to happen.  My point is it's smart to support reforms that improve what we have

No regulation only fails to be an option if we give up on it.  The simple fact is that all the data and statistics point to no regulation as the best option as none of the regulations accomplish anything but giving Govt more control.

[Fitz]

Because it replaces what happens with your guns every time, with a system that allows you to own and trade in them no matter where bought.

You think that I'd be more free if the Feds standardized everything? You think the system they institute wouldn't be something idiotic akin to California?

Lol

[Balog]

Good job ignoring the rest of my post

Do you think if there was a national system set up at the federal level that it would be more or less restrictive than what I deal with now

I don't think anything we will ever plausibly get will ever be any better than things are now. It's all downhill until the country goes full Rome and we enter a second dark age.

But we aren't discussing what I think is likely. We are discussing abstract systems, and which would be superior.

[Balog]

Balog, I agree that it could, possibly, maybe, hopefully be a better system if it was done right. ......................And Communism would work real well if only the right people were in charge. 

If we could replace all the current federal gun laws and replace them with a new simple system, that would be great.  I just don't think anything approaching that is likely to make it through Congress in this day and age.  It might start out as a good bill, but by the time it passed, it would be a mess and likely worse than current laws.  No regulation is a better outcome than what would likely occur. 

People wonder why conservatives are so politically impotent. I wonder if it could be because every time they even think about trying to make things better, people insist that nothing .gov could ever do would ever be good and sht all over whoever is trying?

Nah, must just be the media hates us.

[De Selby]

You think that I'd be more free if the Feds standardized everything? You think the system they institute wouldn't be something idiotic akin to California?

Lol

It could be if gun owners drafted and pushed the change.  Right now the Feds do nothing because gun owners are strong enough to prevent changes, but not strong enough to repeal what's there.

News flash: the federal law already decided who can and can't own a gun, and already authorises every new purchase.  If you can come up with an improvement that is palatable to the other side yet gives gun owners added convenience that's a win, even if it leaves those two facts about our current system in place.

[De Selby]

No regulation only fails to be an option if we give up on it.  The simple fact is that all the data and statistics point to no regulation as the best option as none of the regulations accomplish anything but giving Govt more control.

If you think improved regulation is a pipe dream, distill that down and inject it and you will have the level of high required to believe no regulation is going to happen.

[Scout26]

De Selby.  You continue to avoid my question regarding your proposed plan.

We already have the system you propose here in Illinois (with the FOID Card).   So how do you explain Chicago?

[DustinD]

We could implement a truly universal background check. Let any person run a background check on any other person for any reason and get basic info on them such as any warrants, prohibitions, such as guns or to stay away from children, and so on. People could run them on blind dates, employees, babysitters, neighbors, and so on. They could be done by phone, online, email, fax, snail mail, all for free. You could get a receipt showing that you did the check and what it showed at that point in time to indemnify you for later. This system would take the wind out of the sails of the anti gun people's efforts and hopefully end the debate on background checks. At the same time, we need to implement far better protections for those who are put on the no gun list for reasons that aren't their fault, such as because the FBI messed up their SSN in their info and refuses to fix it without a court order.

The other problem with background check laws is that no one is or even wants to enforce them except occasionally as add-on charges.

[De Selby]

De Selby.  You continue to avoid my question regarding your proposed plan.

We already have the system you propose here in Illinois (with the FOID Card).   So how do you explain Chicago?

The FOID card still requires a background check with every single purchase, and does zero to change who you can and can't buy from in Illinois.  It also doesn't allow you to buy for example on gunbroker from Texas.  So no, it's not what I'm proposing.

[Hawkmoon]

I still don't understand why creating a federal licensing program for the execution of what is supposed to be a constitutionally-guaranteed right that can't be infringed is in any way a good idea. I know you think it's an improvement of some kind, but I'm just not seeing it.

[De Selby]

I still don't understand why creating a federal licensing program for the execution of what is supposed to be a constitutionally-guaranteed right that can't be infringed is in any way a good idea. I know you think it's an improvement of some kind, but I'm just not seeing it.

The licensing aspect already exists.  I'm proposing something that is better for gun owners and more effectively prevents unauthorised purchase.

[Fitz]

The licensing aspect already exists.  I'm proposing something that is better for gun owners and more effectively prevents unauthorised purchase.

I can buy a gun in texas with no license at all. I can find one on a local board, go meet the guy, hand him money, and walk away with a gun

I don't appreciate the idea that I need the feds to give me another obstacle under your plan

[MechAg94]

People wonder why conservatives are so politically impotent. I wonder if it could be because every time they even think about trying to make things better, people insist that nothing .gov could ever do would ever be good and sht all over whoever is trying?

Nah, must just be the media hates us.

Just because something can be simpler doesn't mean it will be.  It also might just make it simpler to abuse.

I am actually trying to be realistic.  this plan won't help with crime or all the things the gun grabbers say they are trying to prevent.  this just gives them an easy lever to pull to ban gun purchases for large numbers of people.  

Sometimes disorganized and inefficient are better when it comes to Govt.  We don't want to base our choices on who can get the trains to run on time.  

Or to put it another way, the odds of implementing this idea in a way that is actually better than what we have are probably worse than the odds of getting rid of current regulations completely.

[MechAg94]

The licensing aspect already exists.  I'm proposing something that is better for gun owners and more effectively prevents unauthorised purchase.

Has the NICS check ever really prevented a criminal from getting a gun? 

[Fitz]

Has the NICS check ever really prevented a criminal from getting a gun? 

we don't know because it isnt' even enforced. prime example of a law that only inconveniences the law abiding

[De Selby]

I can buy a gun in texas with no license at all. I can find one on a local board, go meet the guy, hand him money, and walk away with a gun

I don't appreciate the idea that I need the feds to give me another obstacle under your plan

You can if you can find it used, but federal approval still applies to that sale - it just isn't checked like all new sales.

Something else to consider is that letting the coasts go to the dogs means eventually federal reform will upset your sweet Texas rules.  This is what I never got about the "move free!" CA gun owners.  Over time the demographics are against you unless you can keep those population centres at least somewhat part of the movement.

[MechAg94]

we don't know because it isnt' even enforced. prime example of a law that only inconveniences the law abiding

But take it further.  What does a criminal do when he gets denied?  He goes and finds someone (or BATFE agent) on the street willing to sell him one illegally.  So what is this expensive background check system really accomplishing?  

[De Selby]

Has the NICS check ever really prevented a criminal from getting a gun? 

Yes, multiple times but it's not very effective or efficient to do a check with every purchase.  That's my point - you could have a much better system (demonstrably so to the anti gun people) that delivers benefits for gun owners at the same time.

[De Selby]

we don't know because it isnt' even enforced. prime example of a law that only inconveniences the law abiding

Actually yes, this is part of the point I'm making.  It's cumbersome and not very good for its own purpose - a licence (call it proof of eligibility) is a lot easier to administer because you do it once, then only check for the purpose of taking it away when you catch a criminal.

Want to avoid database errors and questions if you get stopped?  Show the license and you're on your way.  No licence?  No need for the cop to worry about NICS or warrants or anything else.  That's better for everyone and achieves the purpose of the NICS much more efficiently.