An interesting theoretical question.

[vaskidmark]

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.

[drewtam]

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.

[Balog]

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.

[Tallpine]

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

 

[AZRedhawk44]

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.

[Perd Hapley]

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.

[Tallpine]

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 

[zxcvbob]

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.

[ArfinGreebly]

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?

[zxcvbob]

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.

[Balog]

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.

[MicroBalrog]

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.

[Perd Hapley]

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.

[Tallpine]

Compromise 

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.

 

[Hawkmoon]

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.

[Hawkmoon]

Compromise 

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.

[Gowen]

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.

[DustinD]

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.

[RoadKingLarry]

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.

[Balog]

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.

[Tallpine]

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 ...