Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: RevDisk on May 06, 2013, 09:45:48 AM
-
Would you trade "reasonable infringements" such as mandatory training, background searches etc for deregulation of safety gear like suppressors, repeal Hughes Amendment, reasonable nation wide concealed carry, and criminalize confiscation based on magazine size or firearm type with no qualified immunity?
Obviously, details would be hugely important. But the gist of it. Higher low level requirements in change for repealing high end infringements?
Why or why not?
-
No, because they will eventually use those lower level infringements to make virtually everyone ineligible.
-
No.
I'm done with "compromise".
I'm done with "reasonable".
I'm done with "common sense" *coughcoughcoughbullscatcough*.
I like LawDog's "Gun Rights Cake" analogy. http://thelawdogfiles.blogspot.mx/2013/01/a-repost.html
-
Absolutely not, especially with the tide of gun rights swinging in our favor wrt constitutional carry etc
-
I'm with AD. Compromise has continually led to loss of rights. I don't want to own an MP-5 if I have to eventually, through continued "reasonable infringements", keep it locked up at a gun range.
-
No.
Compromise just means they get half of what they want now, another quarter of it in 5 years, and another eighth of it in 10 years. In the meantime, I get higher ammo prices, media villainization, increased nagging paperwork for my firearms, decreased ability to carry in public.
I'm done compromising.
-
No matter what the terms, you cannot form a "joint promise" with a back-stabbing, lying, psychopathic, son-of-a-bitch.
early 15c., "a joint promise to abide by an arbiter's decision," from Middle French compromis (13c.), from Latin compromissus, past participle of compromittere "to make a mutual promise" (to abide by the arbiter's decision), from com- "together" (see com-) + promittere (see promise).
-
One of my liberal co-workers knows I'm a "gun guy"... He started with the "common sense" meme... After he got folded, spindled and mutilated in that argument, tried to change tack to "reasonable compromise"... I flat out asked him what I would get out of this compromise... He seemed genuinely puzzled that getting to continue to exercise "some" of my rights wasn't my definition of compromise... I put it more straightforward - "You're asking me to give something up. What is your side willing to give up in exchange?"
He still didn't get it.
-
No. Why would I compromise anything, especially now that my state is stepping in to protect my rights? [full text (http://www.kslegislature.org/li/b2013_14/measures/documents/sb102_enrolled.pdf)]
SB 102 establishes the Second Amendment Protection Act.
First, the bill excludes from federal regulation any personal firearm, firearm accessory, or ammunition manufactured commercially or privately and owned in Kansas. The bill provides that for as long as any such personal firearm, firearm accessory, or ammunition remains within the borders of Kansas, it is not subject to any federal law, regulation, or authority.
Second, the bill prevents any federal agent or contracted employee, any state employee, or any local authority from enforcing any federal regulation or law governing any personal firearm, firearm accessory, or ammunition manufactured commercially or privately and owned in Kansas, provided it remains within the borders of Kansas. In the process of a criminal prosecution, the bill precludes any arrest or detention prior to a trial for a violation of the Act. Finally, the bill allows a county or district attorney or the Attorney General to seek injunctive relief in court to enjoin certain federal officials from enforcing federal law regarding a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured commercially or privately and owned in the state of Kansas and that remains within the borders of Kansas.
This was signed into law [cite (http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/15132-kansas-gov-signs-watered-down-second-amendment-protection-act)]. I didn't see anything in there about MG's or suppressors being exempt. Now - I'M NOT GOING TO BE THE TEST CASE FOR THIS; But near as I read it:
a) A personal firearm, a firearm accessory or ammunition that
is manufactured commercially or privately and owned in Kansas and that
remains within the borders of Kansas is not subject to any federal law,
treaty, federal regulation, or federal executive action, including any fed-
eral firearm or ammunition registration program, under the authority of
congress to regulate interstate commerce.
Firearms accessories’’ means items that are used in conjunction
with or mounted upon a firearm but are not essential to the basic function
of a firearm, including, but not limited to, telescopic or laser sights, mag-
azines, flash or sound suppressors, collapsible or adjustable stocks and
grips, pistol grips, thumbhole stocks, speedloaders, ammunition carriers
and lights for target illumination.
firearm manufactured in Kansas within the meaning of sec-
tions 1 through 11, and amendments thereto, must have the words ‘‘Made
in Kansas’’ clearly stamped on a central metallic part, such as the receiver
or frame.
Firearms, suppressors, standard cap mags and MG's [maybe, haven't read how this plays with existing KS law] are now deregulated in the state of Kansas. If I wanted to create either in my machine shop, so long as they are engraved "Made in Kansas", I'm protected by this act.
ETA: MG's aren't covered. Lots of other stuff is, though.
-
AmbulanceDriver, the "compromise" is that they only take this little bit from you today, and they don't go after more until next year.
-
"You're asking me to give something up. What is your side willing to give up in exchange?"
Rev's question is a true compromise, as noted by AD's definition... what do we get?
suppressors
automatics
explosives
large bore weapons
federal reciprocity of ccw
and state exemption of overtly restrictive laws
True compromises like this are more interesting. In day to day life, these changes wouldn't make much difference for many. But if 29% are expecting armed civil war in their lifetime to protect civil rights, then these might be appropriate compromises to stock up in preparation for such an awful epoch.
Crime & terrorism probably won't be affected. In some ways, entry level introduction to firearms will become more difficult due to the increased cost and time for training and background checks. It is easy to underestimate the impact this has to the movement and culture as a whole.
On the whole, I find this to be a balanced return for loss. My biggest issue with it, is the introductory costs this creates. This is a problem for 2 reasons, #1 it strangles the movement over a period of decades, which is a risky move for us #2 it imposes a "poll tax" on a human and civil right, which is bad on principle.
Until actual details were created and judged, I would consider it plausible but suspicious.
-
I didn't see anything in there about MG's or suppressors being exempt.
Firearms accessories’’ means items that are used in conjunction
with or mounted upon a firearm but are not essential to the basic function
of a firearm, including, but not limited to, telescopic or laser sights, mag-
azines, flash or sound suppressors, collapsible or adjustable stocks and
grips, pistol grips, thumbhole stocks, speedloaders, ammunition carriers
and lights for target illumination.
[popcorn]
Thank you Governor Brownback.
-
No.
I'm done with "compromise".
I'm done with "reasonable".
I'm done with "common sense" *coughcoughcoughbullscatcough*.
I like LawDog's "Gun Rights Cake" analogy. http://thelawdogfiles.blogspot.mx/2013/01/a-repost.html
Quoted for truth.
The 2nd Amendment says the RKBA shall not be infringed. Period. There is no "unreasonably" in there, and there is nothing about training, background checks, registration, or any of the rest of the "common sense" garbage the antis want to impose on us.
There can be no compromise, because for the antis today's "compromise" is never the end ... it's always just another "good first step" toward their ultimate goal, which is the complete elimination of firearms in private ownership.
No.
Just 'No."
-
The only compromise I'm interested in: Repeal GCA68 in its entirety, repeal everything gun-related in the 1968 Omnibus Crime Act, reopen the machine gun registry, AND take suppressors off the NFA. In return, the antis can keep the rest of NFA34 (for now.)
Basically, roll everything back to 1967 plus remove federal restrictions on suppressors/silencers.
-
. . . put it more straightforward - "You're asking me to give something up. What is your side willing to give up in exchange?"
I've had this very experience on more than one occasion with people who advocate "compromise" on any of a number of issues, beginning with a teacher 'way back in elementary school who mulishly refused to consider that both sides ought to gain/lose something in more or less the same proportion if there's a true "compromise."
-
I don't see what is proposed in the OP as comprimise.
It's bait and switch. The whole thing comes down to we can either have cool stuff with lots of regulations or limited regulations but not as much shiny toys.
Both option are infringment, therefor neither is comprimise.
You can't comprimise absolute principles. They just don't work like that.
-
1. Most/some states already have a "training" requirement. (Some as simple as Hunter Ed or a DD214), so that "infringement" is already there.
2. We already have NICS for the purchase from FFL. That's a background check. (Others of us have one done when we get our FOID cards or CCW/LTC permits), so we already have that infringement.
So in exchange for nothing changing (and can we get that in writing/law. "No New Gun Laws"), we'd get 922(d) repealed along with national reciprocity and the elimination of DD/AOW and other regs so that anyone that can own a gun can own a MG/Suppressor, SBR, etc.
Sounds like the other side would be doing all the "compromising" as we simply agree to status quo, while they agree to roll back various infringements.
I think good Rev has gotten into the stronger stuff this time. =D ;)
-
AmbulanceDriver, the "compromise" is that they only take this little bit from you today, and they don't go after more until next year WEEK.
FTFY. They never wait a whole YEAR.
Pointing out the true definition of the word "compromise," or that what they offer is not even CLOSE to a compromise, never fazes them, either.
Quoted for truth.
The 2nd Amendment says the RKBA shall not be infringed. Period. There is no "unreasonably" in there, and there is nothing about training, background checks, registration, or any of the rest of the "common sense" garbage the antis want to impose on us.
There can be no compromise, because for the antis today's "compromise" is never the end ... it's always just another "good first step" toward their ultimate goal, which is the complete elimination of firearms in private ownership.
No.
Just 'No."
And they come right out and TELL you things like, "This is a good start," or, "It's just a first, small step on the road." Crap like that.
I might be tempted into OP's compromise, if I thought the other side was at all trustworthy. They've long since proven they aren't
No deal.
-
1. Most/some states already have a "training" requirement. (Some as simple as Hunter Ed or a DD214), so that "infringement" is already there.
Only for concealed carry or to get a hunting license. In most states, I don't have to have any training simply to buy a gun.
-
All I want to know is how we can be abso-damn-lutely guaranteed that what they give up will and can never be taken back. And add that stuff like country-wide recognition of CCW will not be incrementally changed. I want something like the Interstate Compact on Drivers Licenses, which the feds say is tied to the $@*#!! Commerce Clause so the states really have no choice but to agree to sign off on it. (And yes, it does directly effect interstate commerce - just ask Maryland why I do not even enter their state when I travel up and down the east coast.)
Do that and I'm on the bandwagon.
But not until you can do that.
Listen carefully. Can you hear it? "Peace in our time." "Appeasement." Worked just great the last time, didn't it?
stay safe.
-
I don't recall whether the Missouri Carry forum is viewable by guests. If so, peep some of our recent threads to get an idea of how badly the anti's can mess with a CCW program. It should forever sour you on the idea of letting Washington anywhere near that process.
http://www.missouricarry.com/forums/index.php
I'm going to go curl up under my desk now.
-
OP: No.
And it's not that I haven't posted several times on several boards for several years about the dynamics of negotiation and compromise when one party is the aggressor, armed with hundreds of full-time devotees who agree with and are complicit with the aggression
And the other party is just a bunch of hobbyists who have livings to make and mouths to feed and just go out on weekends to burn some powder.
Basically, that's the True State of Affairs.
Terry, 230RN
-
Firearms, suppressors, standard cap mags and MG's [maybe, haven't read how this plays with existing KS law] are now deregulated in the state of Kansas. If I wanted to create either in my machine shop, so long as they are engraved "Made in Kansas", I'm protected by this act.
I thought that eixsting KS law regulating these various devices is not repealed by this bill?
-
NO!
Why?
Because I damn well don't have to.
What part of "...Shall not be infringed" is so al fired blessed hard to *expletive deleted*ing understand?
-
Are you talking about the specific compromise you outline, or about the general notion of quid pro quo comprommise?
-
Are you talking about the specific compromise you outline, or about the general notion of quid pro quo comprommise?
Suggest to me a quo that might be offered in exchange for our quid.
And then tell me how it will be protected from alteration some time down the road, while their quo remains cast in concrete.
Seriously, just how much do we have left to give?
stay safe.
-
Suggest to me a quo that might be offered in exchange for our quid.
And then tell me how it will be protected from alteration some time down the road, while their quo remains cast in concrete.
Seriously, just how much do we have left to give?
stay safe.
Per Rev's hypothetical...
This:
suppressors
automatics
explosives
large bore weapons
federal reciprocity of ccw
and state exemption of overtly restrictive laws
for that:
training
background checks
And then tell me how it will be protected from alteration some time down the road, while their quo remains cast in concrete.
Law or no law, compromise or no compromise, that is a standard no one, ever will be able to promise. There is no freedom in any country at any time in the history of mankind that could ever live up to that standard. Not even a Constitutional amendment passed by the founders of a nation can promise that. The requirement of freedom is always eternal vigilance by each generation. The only promise we have is that we will always struggle to balance freedoms, rights, responsibility, good governance and civil society.
-
Incrementalism works, which is how we got to where we are today with the bad laws. So incrementalism can work the other way too. If it's the anti's cake that's being eaten then we should go along with it. I don't really like the idea of driver's licenses, but I can live with them. I don't like that I had to sit through a class with a bunch of bitter old douchebags telling me I shouldnt shoot at noises to get a hunting license. I don't like the idea of getting a background check and taking a 4 hour class to certify that I know the 4 rules to get a card that says "Not a felon, can purchase guns legally" but if it resulted in a repeal of everything up to and including NFA 1934 I'd be open to it.
And as was pointed out, the "Guarantee me that the law will never change" standard is impossible. If we hold out for everything we want all at once, plus a definitionaly impossible promise, then we won't get anything.
-
Here is a "compromise" for you:
We get:
suppressors
automatics
explosives
large bore weapons
federal reciprocity of ccw
and state exemption of overtly restrictive laws
They get:
we put up with the current level of background checks for the time being, until we ask for another compromise
:P
-
Incrementalism works, which is how we got to where we are today with the bad laws. So incrementalism can work the other way too.
Big problem with reverse-incrementalism is that it never returns to originalism.
You end up with convoluted legal texts that are thousands of words long and require 3 different JD degrees to interpret them "correctly..." rather than "shall not be infringed."
No more compromise. No more words. Only removal of them. A great big enema from the colon of USC.
-
Big problem with reverse-incrementalism is that it never returns to originalism.
You end up with convoluted legal texts that are thousands of words long and require 3 different JD degrees to interpret them "correctly..." rather than "shall not be infringed."
No more compromise. No more words. Only removal of them. A great big enema from the colon of USC.
I kind of agree with this. The problem with agreeing to any new infringements is that they become "reasonable," merely because we agreed to them, they are the law, and people are used to it. We end up with more infringements being normalized.
-
I kind of agree with this. The problem with agreeing to any new infringements is that they become "reasonable," merely because we agreed to them, they are the law, and people are used to it. We end up with more infringements being normalized.
Yeah, look at all the people that don't remember when, or don't even know that there was a time when, you could order real guns through the mail ;/
-
Yeah, look at all the people that don't remember when, or don't even know that there was a time when, you could order real guns through the mail ;/
And that's my opening bid. (draw a line through everything enacted after 1967) I actually want more than that, but 1967 would be a good start. The Republicans are probably against that even more than the Dems because it gets rid of the whole "prohibited person" category.
-
Compromise?
How about we begin with things as they were when I graduated high school in 1967?
No gun permits (at least out west, anyway). No registration. No licensed dealers.
Guns by mail. Guns at Sears. Guns at Montgomery Wards. Guns at hardware stores and gas stations. Guns, for crying out loud, at my local supermarket (Raley's) in Placerville, California.
No school shootings. No theater rampages. Murder was still something charged to a person rather than whatever he used to do it.
Let's start there.
Now, the compromise I want to offer is that in exchange for declassifying gun mufflers (suppressors/silencers), I am willing to endure legislation that makes gun safety training mandatory in schools, kind of like the old driver's ed programs.
How about that, then?
-
I thought I was the only one who remembered 1967 -- I was just a young'un then, but I was very observant ;)
Maybe make it 1966 though. 1967 is when Ronald Reagan signed the Mulford act in California, outlawing the carrying of loaded firearms by scary black people.
-
And if everything up to and including NFA 1934 was struck down and we don't full faith and credit, "CA and NY have to recognize any state's carry permits as valid with no local pre-emption" in exchange for a "gun owner's license" that was 1. a background check and 2. a basic hunter's ed style license? Would you go for that?
Not that either political party wants to actually repeal GCA or NFA, but (as the title says) a hypothetical.
Edit: normalization goes both ways. I'll take normalizing a gun owner license if it also normalizes machine guns, suppressors, mail order guns to your front door etc.
-
Why do we need such an immense compromise?
Gun owner licensing should be off the table. Rights aren't licensed.
But, say, a Hughes Amendment repeal in exchange for, background checks at any transaction that transpires within the doors of a gun show?
I think many would take that deal.
-
Edit: normalization goes both ways. I'll take normalizing a gun owner license if it also normalizes machine guns, suppressors, mail order guns to your front door etc.
The point is that we've already accepted (normalized) crippling regulation of the full auto, suppressor and mail order gun market. It's been established that the govt can do that, and the people will shut up and take it.
Now we scrap those regulations and agree to (that is, we normalize) mandatory training, etc.
Now both forms of gun control are seen as normal and acceptable, even if the first is not currently in force. Both are enshrined in law and precedent.
Not good.
-
Compromise :angel:
Repeal all federal gun control laws back to and including NFA, and we graciously accept background checks and five day waiting period on purchase of nuclear weapons.
=)
-
I kind of agree with this. The problem with agreeing to any new infringements is that they become "reasonable," merely because we agreed to them, they are the law, and people are used to it. We end up with more infringements being normalized.
That is, indeed, one of the crucial arguments about giving in to any new limits on use, ownership or possession of what the antis like to call "assault weapons." Like it or not, the Supreme Court has latched onto the notion that what the 2nd Amendment protects is an individual right to keep (and bear, but they haven't come right out and said that yet) the weapons "in common use." So if the antis can manage to manipulate AR-15s out of "common" use, they can then argue that they aren't among the (ever shrinking) group of firearms protected by the 2nd Amendment.
-
Compromise :angel:
Repeal all federal gun control laws back to and including NFA, and we graciously accept background checks and five day waiting period on purchase of nuclear weapons.
I could reluctantly agree with this.
As long as I don't have to wait 5 days for my F-16.
-
Compromise?
How about we begin with things as they were when I graduated high school in 1967?
No gun permits (at least out west, anyway). No registration. No licensed dealers.
Guns by mail. Guns at Sears. Guns at Montgomery Wards. Guns at hardware stores and gas stations. Guns, for crying out loud, at my local supermarket (Raley's) in Placerville, California.
No school shootings. No theater rampages. Murder was still something charged to a person rather than whatever he used to do it.
Let's start there.
Now, the compromise I want to offer is that in exchange for declassifying gun mufflers (suppressors/silencers), I am willing to endure legislation that makes gun safety training mandatory in schools, kind of like the old driver's ed programs.
How about that, then?
I worked for Raley's for 27 years, when they closed one of the stores in Reno, under a stair well they found some old shotguns from when the store sold guns. A friend of mine bought them. This was back in the 90's, I don't even think they ran it through NICS, he just paid the manager for them.
For some of you this is a loosing of already restrictive gun laws, for me in Nevada I would be loosing some rights I already have. We can own MG's and sound suppressors, we just have to go through background checks and pay our tax to own them. This is a state by state issue, not national. If we are talking about doing away with all state gun laws and having one federal standard, that's a whole different ball game and not one I would readily agree to.
-
After the MG registry is reopened the over two million new MG owners with their five million plus registered MGs will demand at least partial repeal of the NFA. After MGs are more common, and everyone has normal "assault weapons" as per the current trend, the rest of the NFA will be easy. Other than maybe the destructive device bit, but it is do able. Maybe drop the DD tax to $5 each, and remove most of the extra BS like state travel, CLEO sign off, finger prints, long waits, etc. At that point we can make getting the feds out of gun control our main argument.
-
I still don't undertand what is so hard to understand about 4 simple words. SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.
There is nothing arbitrary or confusing in that clause.
Instead of a myriad of capricious, premptive laws lets just drop the hammer on those that actually do harm ( or credibly threaten to do so). In other words let's punish people for actual bad deeds not restrict them for what someone might do.
It's called liberty, if you don't understand it Google might be of some help.
Also, see my sig line.
-
I still don't undertand what is so hard to understand about 4 simple words. SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.
There is nothing arbitrary or confusing in that clause.
Instead of a myriad of capricious, premptive laws lets just drop the hammer on those that actually do harm ( or credibly threaten to do so). In other words let's punish people for actual bad deeds not restrict them for what someone might do.
It's called liberty, if you don't understand it Google might be of some help.
Also, see my sig line.
While I agree with that, we're talking about what can be achieved today, not what we'd like to see as the end goal. Gotta have baby steps.
-
I could reluctantly agree with this.
As long as I don't have to wait 5 days for my F-16.
No wait, but you probably should take a class before you fly it ;)
While I agree with that, we're talking about what can be achieved today, not what we'd like to see as the end goal. Gotta have baby steps.
Giving up stuff in baby steps doesn't seem like the way to go ... =|