CATO Institute Sells Out RKBA

[MechAg94]

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.

You are incorrect.  And your system wouldn't be any more effective.  The Govt is incapable of preventing criminal's access to guns.  

[De Selby]

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?  

If only the law abiding gun owner had an easy, non intrusive way to check whether he's being scammed by a felon, this wouldn't really be an option for said felon

How could we come up with something that lets gun owners check but doesn't require a gun shop or interaction with the Feds every time?  Maybe a licence we could ask to see?

It's patently obvious that it would be easier to prevent sales to felons that way, but hey - that's a regulation so we must oppose it!  Constitutionalgrammarfedsuxrightsrightsrights rarrrr!

If only you could acknowledge that the Feds exercise this power over your rights right now, we might be able to work on feasible improvements

[MechAg94]

If only the law abiding gun owner had an easy, non intrusive way to check whether he's being scammed by a felon, this wouldn't really be an option for said felon

How could we come up with something that lets gun owners check but doesn't require a gun shop or interaction with the Feds every time?  Maybe a licence we could ask to see?

If only the guy who stole the guns he has can have a system to be sure he is not fencing them to an undercover cop? 

You are missing the point.  You continue to only look at this from an optimistic and rosy perspective.  That is unrealistic.  It would take very little change to turn your bill into a gun control bill. 

[De Selby]

If only the guy who stole the guns he has can have a system to be sure he is not fencing them to an undercover cop?  

You are missing the point.  You continue to only look at this from an optimistic and rosy perspective.  That is unrealistic.  It would take very little change to turn your bill into a gun control bill.  

It would take as much to change any new measure as it would to introduce a new one right now.  That's really not a count against supporting good rules.

There will always be avenues for black market products,  great.  That doesn't mean the regulated market is irrelevant to crime, or that you can't do better with what you have.  

[Scout26]

Again, you dodged my question.  Your proposal is supposed to keep guns out of the hands of bad guys and the mentally ill.  Again, I point to my home state of Illinois, that requires one to have a FOID card (Like your license) to purchase or possess firearms and/or ammunition, yet Chicago is like Fallujah on a good weekend.  (IIRC, we've had more people shot this year then have been killed in Afghanistan since 2001.)

Yes, we still have to go through background checks and have to follow federal gun laws, but the primary push, the raison d'être is to keep guns away from bad people.

IT DOES NOT WORK.   And Chicago is living, breathing, bleeding proof that your idea is a failure.  Even without going into all the way the fed. gov can  abuse your system.  You have that pie-in-sky belief that .gov are all sweetness and light.  They aren't.  There are the stupid ones that only know how to say "No". and the smart ones that use their powers to abuse people.

Until you realize that any .gov is inherently evil, we will oppose any vile schemes like this one. 

[Balog]

I am actually trying to be realistic

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.

 
 

[Balog]

Until you realize that any .gov is inherently evil, we will oppose any vile schemes like this one. 

Oh, you've renounced your vow to protect and defend the Constitution and converted to anarchism? Interesting.

Since the US .gov is evil, I can only assume you're totally cool with people protesting this evil .gov by burning flags or sitting during the national anthem? And agents of that evil .gov would be fair game too, correct?

[zxcvbob]

Oh, you've renounced your vow to protect and defend the Constitution and converted to anarchism? Interesting.

Since the US .gov is evil, I can only assume you're totally cool with people protesting this evil .gov by burning flags or sitting during the national anthem? And agents of that evil .gov would be fair game too, correct?

Fair game for what, assassination?  Don't be coy, say what you mean.   

BTW, while I find flag-burning offensive, I think the Supreme Court got that one right.  Speech that offends no-one doesn't need protection.

[RoadKingLarry]

It takes a special kind of stupid to actually think giving the federal government more control over anything is a good idea.

Oh, you've renounced your vow to protect and defend the Constitution and converted to anarchism? Interesting.

Since the US .gov is evil, I can only assume you're totally cool with people protesting this evil .gov by burning flags or sitting during the national anthem? And agents of that evil .gov would be fair game too, correct?

Bullshit argument.  .gov is not the Constitution, nor is it the country.
There is a phrase in the Declaration of Independence I'm sure you are familiar with.

. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.-

We aren't quite to that point yet but I expect to see it in my lifetime. The statists keep pushing and eventually there will be pushback. We're already seeing it in small doses but those incidents have been jackboot stomped and played off by the media as crazy radicals.
When the tipping point comes it will be ugly and nasty. Maybe a bang, maybe a whimper, how it ends up is anyone's guess but I doubt I'll see the other side.

[Scout26]

Oh, you've renounced your vow to protect and defend the Constitution and converted to anarchism? Interesting.

Since the US .gov is evil, I can only assume you're totally cool with people protesting this evil .gov by burning flags or sitting during the national anthem? And agents of that evil .gov would be fair game too, correct?

The founders knew that .gov is inherently evil.  However, they also realized that some government was needed (in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and ensure the blessings of liberty to themselves and their posterity).  But their intent was to seriously rein it in via the constitution to make it as small as possible.  Sadly, we have strayed from that model and ideal.   That is what I have sworn to protect and defend, the Constitution, not the .gov.

And yes, if someone wants to burn the flag.  It's their first amendment right.  Doesn't mean I agree with it.  But I do understand it is being done to get a rise out of those of use who love this country.   And if you want to sit during the National Anthem.  That's fine also.  Then I will not pay to watch you play your game.   You may "speak" your mind, but that does not mean that you cannot be criticized, or suffer financially for your choices. 

[De Selby]

The beauty of supporting improved regulation is that you can still vent on the internet and daydream to your heart's content about the pipe dream that is "constitutional carry and ownership".

In fact, in the long run, if ownership is seen as more problem free and expands you might even get marginally less regulation over time.

Holding out for the big win just means living with rules that are gradually reducing the number of gun owners and activists, and whatever state you're in today that will bite you in the long run.

[De Selby]

Again, you dodged my question.  Your proposal is supposed to keep guns out of the hands of bad guys and the mentally ill.  Again, I point to my home state of Illinois, that requires one to have a FOID card (Like your license) to purchase or possess firearms and/or ammunition, yet Chicago is like Fallujah on a good weekend.  (IIRC, we've had more people shot this year then have been killed in Afghanistan since 2001.)

Yes, we still have to go through background checks and have to follow federal gun laws, but the primary push, the raison d'être is to keep guns away from bad people.

IT DOES NOT WORK.   And Chicago is living, breathing, bleeding proof that your idea is a failure.  Even without going into all the way the fed. gov can  abuse your system.  You have that pie-in-sky belief that .gov are all sweetness and light.  They aren't.  There are the stupid ones that only know how to say "No". and the smart ones that use their powers to abuse people.

Until you realize that any .gov is inherently evil, we will oppose any vile schemes like this one. 

As I e explained, the FOID model is not what I'm proposing and it is basically "what we have plus a card that serves no function on top of what we all have from the Feds".  My proposition here is to REPLACE what we have with something that serves the same purpose but does so more effectively and with less red tape for gun owners.

[Triphammer]

De Selby,
 You keep referring to "we' but you haven't been part of this "we' for some time . Yes you.re still a US citizen but as regards gun buying you live by Aussie rules. Your proposal might be an improvement there but I don't see it here.
 If the Super Total Universal Public Instant Background Check  were available for all to use for any reason, then it wouldn't fully correlate to gun owners. But if it were implemented we'd  need first a new department "Super Total Universal Public Instant Background Dept."   to run it.
 Then, if required to use there would have to be a way to oversee it. We simple peons couldn't be trusted to properly fill out & keep records so there need to be bureaucrats to do this. Maybe federalize FFLs like they did for airport security. That worked well.  
Then once everything is in place, all the paperwork is being handled and things are running smooth (Ha) one executive order can stop every sale, transfer or gift in the country.
 I'll take my state by state inefficient patchwork, thank you.
 From the great free state of Arizona.

[Hawkmoon]

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

But ...

(1) your proposal requires everyone who ever wants to buy a gun to have a license. In most states today, anyone who doesn't need to buy a shiny NEW gun from an FFL can buy a gun with no license or background check at all. Legally (unless it's a prohibited person).

Which brings us to ...

(2) How is your system going to "effectively" prevent those who by definition don't abide by laws from obtaining guns, whether by "unauthorized purchase" or by direct theft? Multiple posts in this thread have mentioned Chicago. Think about that, because it wasn't an idle comment. Chicago has about the strictest gun laws in the country, yet it also has about the highest murder rate in the country. Felons don't buy their guns at gun shops or gun shows, they buy them on street corners and in alleys. They don't submit to background checks and they don't show licenses.

It doesn't matter how many times you say your system would be an improvement, in reality it just ain't so. Repeating it doesn't make it any less irrational.

[De Selby]

But ...

(1) your proposal requires everyone who ever wants to buy a gun to have a license. In most states today, anyone who doesn't need to buy a shiny NEW gun from an FFL can buy a gun with no license or background check at all. Legally (unless it's a prohibited person).

Which brings us to ...

(2) How is your system going to "effectively" prevent those who by definition don't abide by laws from obtaining guns, whether by "unauthorized purchase" or by direct theft? Multiple posts in this thread have mentioned Chicago. Think about that, because it wasn't an idle comment. Chicago has about the strictest gun laws in the country, yet it also has about the highest murder rate in the country. Felons don't buy their guns at gun shops or gun shows, they buy them on street corners and in alleys. They don't submit to background checks and they don't show licenses.

It doesn't matter how many times you say your system would be an improvement, in reality it just ain't so. Repeating it doesn't make it any less irrational.

You can't be serious.  You've just identified an easy way for a felon to buy a gun and defeat the "Chicago" and other restrictions, then in the very next sentence talked about how felons don't submit to background checks.

See how there might be a win there for both sides?  If you can abide by a relatively meaningless change on item 1, you give a very real and measurable boost against problem 2 (because there's an easy way for both private parties to a second hand sale to establish eligibility.)

Given enough time and population growth outside the less populous states, an incident where someone buys a gun out of the papers and does something with it to generate sufficient outrage to get something worse passed is a highly likely outcome.  Endorsing something that adds convenience you don't have now and makes that incident impossible without wrongdoing by a seller is a good thing.

[Fitz]

How does your proposal stop a felon from buying a black market or stolen gun?

 They already regularly do face-to-face transactions in states where they are illegal

Your proposal... how does it change the long documented fact that criminals and the black market always subvert gun control?

[MechAg94]

The beauty of supporting improved regulation is that you can still vent on the internet and daydream to your heart's content about the pipe dream that is "constitutional carry and ownership".

In fact, in the long run, if ownership is seen as more problem free and expands you might even get marginally less regulation over time.

Holding out for the big win just means living with rules that are gradually reducing the number of gun owners and activists, and whatever state you're in today that will bite you in the long run.

Venting and internet daydreaming is where you are Balog are sitting. 

[MechAg94]

Okay, here is what I was considering with regard to De Selby's idea.  He has mentioned an FOID card so I assume his intention is a gun owner's license we have to apply for.  Currently, I might get denied or delayed buying a specific gun.  If I know that is an error, I can still buy a gun face to face (legally).  If there is a federal FOID card, even face to face sellers would want to check it simply due to liability.  You see some people wanting receipts and copies of licenses now.  

Positives of this idea:
1.  Simple (as presented) system for buying and selling guns to be sure the other party is not a prohibited person.  
2.  No paperwork for every gun bought/sold which is great for gun collectors.  
3.  The FedGov does not have a registry of guns bought/sold.  

Negatives of this idea:
1.  Everyone has to apply for a permit to buy guns.  
2.  The FOID application process becomes a built in waiting period for first purchasers.  
3.  We now have a permitting process that is in the hands of federal bureaucrats.
4.  The FedGov now has a gun owner registry.  
5.  Face to face transactions without checking for FOID cards would make the seller liable at minimum.  
6.  Someone who just wants one or two guns for self protection will have to get the same permit as someone with 100 guns.  Some might not see this as a negative.

We have not discussed what processes or procedures would be in place to approve or deny an FOID; or disqualify someone who already has one.  We have not discussed which part of the FedGov would manage this system and what oversight would be in place.  There are a thousand details that could turn this "simple" system into a regulatory mess not to mention opportunities for abuse.  

Most of this is what I was thinking about the other day right after DeSelby mentioned the idea.  This was also largely why I rejected the idea.  If we want to assume that everyone has good intentions, then lots of things are possible.  I very little faith in the good intentions of federal bureaucrats and Congressmen who would actually implement any of these ideas.  

Balog, since you are smarter than everyone else, please add your 2 cents to this list.  I am sure you can come up with lots of positives.  

[Hawkmoon]

You can't be serious.  You've just identified an easy way for a felon to buy a gun and defeat the "Chicago" and other restrictions, then in the very next sentence talked about how felons don't submit to background checks.

See how there might be a win there for both sides?  If you can abide by a relatively meaningless change on item 1, you give a very real and measurable boost against problem 2 (because there's an easy way for both private parties to a second hand sale to establish eligibility.)

No, I don't. I don't live in Chicago, but I do live in a state that requires a background check for ALL firearms purchases, even those involving face-to-face transactions between private parties. It has been that way for years, yet I also know that that people who shouldn't be allowed (and legally aren't allowed) to own guns aren't buying them through Craig's List ads -- they're buying them through a friend who knows a guy who heard about a guy who can connect you with a guy ... And that's precisely the mechanism your proposal will do NOTHING to curtail. I know we sometimes refer to Australia as Oz, but if you actually believe that passing a law requiring a national license will somehow magically force all the bad guys to instantly stop buying guns on street corners, late at night, through a friend who knows a guy who heard about a guy who can connect you with a guy, you really do live in Oz.

Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.

[MechAg94]

No, I don't. I don't live in Chicago, but I do live in a state that requires a background check for ALL firearms purchases, even those involving face-to-face transactions between private parties. It has been that way for years, yet I also know that that people who shouldn't be allowed (and legally aren't allowed) to own guns aren't buying them through Craig's List ads -- they're buying them through a friend who knows a guy who heard about a guy who can connect you with a guy ... And that's precisely the mechanism your proposal will do NOTHING to curtail. I knew we sometimes refer to Australia as Oz, but if you actually believe that passing a law requiring a national license will somehow magically force all the bad guys to instantly stop buying guns on street corners, late at night, through a friend who knows a guy who heard about a guy who can connect you with a guy, you really do live in Oz.

Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.

Australia's guns laws haven't stopped criminals from getting guns there. 

[De Selby]

Australia's guns laws haven't stopped criminals from getting guns there. 

That isn't entirely true.  They have been extremely effective at preventing mass shootings and unbalanced neighbor murders.

Organised crime still obtains them, but you should see their haul.  A crappy single barrel .410 sawn into a pistol is a common weapon, fuelled with backyard reloads.

So no, not right there - like drug bans it is effective at reducing overall prevalence.  Whether it's worth the cost is another story.

[MechAg94]

That isn't entirely true.  They have been extremely effective at preventing mass shootings and unbalanced neighbor murders.

Organised crime still obtains them, but you should see their haul.  A crappy single barrel .410 sawn into a pistol is a common weapon, fuelled with backyard reloads.

So no, not right there - like drug bans it is effective at reducing overall prevalence.  Whether it's worth the cost is another story.

And how many of those mass shootings and unbalanced murders did you have before the ban?  One or two?  You do realize there was very widespread non-compliance with the gun bans there don't you? 

It really doesn't matter since none of those reasons is justification for scaling back the rights of every citizen in the country.

[Hawkmoon]

That isn't entirely true.  They have been extremely effective at preventing mass shootings and unbalanced neighbor murders.

Luck of the draw. Heck, my town has been in existence for 275 years and there hasn't been a single mass killing (or even mass shooting) in that entire time. Why should I be subject to a new licensing scheme because of something that happened in California or Colorado?

[De Selby]

And how many of those mass shootings and unbalanced murders did you have before the ban?  One or two?  You do realize there was very widespread non-compliance with the gun bans there don't you? 

It really doesn't matter since none of those reasons is justification for scaling back the rights of every citizen in the country.

This is funny, because there were actually lots of mass shootings here before the 96 reforms and psycho shootings, which are essentially unheard of now. 

There was not widespread noncompliance, that's total garbage.  And the run of criminal guns today speaks to if - as I said, a hacksawed 410 is a pretty common haul.  More than that it's almost a guaranteed high level organised crime affair (which means it doesn affect ordinary people).

The propaganda must be stronger that hemisphere

[Perd Hapley]

It's not any more prone to abuse than what we have now

This is an easy one, so forgive me if someone's already handled it, but no. What we have now is a system that keeps track of the ineligible. Anyone the system doesn't identify as a bad actor is to be let alone. The abuse is that it could be, allegedly is being, used to make a list of gun-owners. The system you propose is, apparently, to make that abuse legal, official, accepted.