Washington State is probably going to lose a big piece of the gun rights battle soon, because it looks like Initiative I-594 is going to pass. Now, I hope I’m wrong. I hope the polling data is wildly incorrect, and that the initiative doesn’t pass. But things aren’t looking good for Washington right now, and it’s because at least in that state, they’ve lost the language battle around background checks.
The problem with background check initiatives is that the language is really hard to control. “Background checks on all gun sales” sounds really good, especially if you’re swinging Paul Allen levels of money at low information voters. Yes, we know that internet sales and face to face sales are perfectly legal and actually aren’t a giant black market for felons, but how do you message that when the opposite side is dropping millions of dollars to sway low-information voters?
And make no mistake, that’s what will win or lose this ballot fight. It won’t be the dedicated pro or anti-gun people hitting the polls, it’ll be the Soccer Moms with their lattes and Ugg boots who vote for this. The media campaign I’ve seen for I-594 has been really good, which makes sense because the anti-gun groups have piled a ton of money into it. Just…all the money. This is how the fight is going to look now, and that’s unfortunate because it’s harder to fight at that level for us.
The NRA, and the pro-gun people always win when the argument comes down to facts. That’s why SAF wins in courts, that’s why we win when we fight legislative battles. But ballot initiatives are like winning elections, and they’re decided by the people. As it turns out, most people are pretty stupid and easily swayed by emotion arguments, and there’s nothing our opponents are better at than emotional arguments. I do have to hand it to those guys, they did a good job of picking targets this time. A ballot initiative in a state with a notoriously ignorant electorate about an issue that’s easy to disguise and mislead on? Well played, fuckers.
I hope in two months time I’m writing a post about how wrong I was.
Perhaps in three months you will be writing about how right you were from a state that does not consider you “subject.” All left leaning states view the rights of their citizens as conditional items, very similar to how they promote conditional morality. For example, Montville NJ is considering an ordinance to allow police to search house without a warrant on the suspicion of under-age drinking. For the children!!!
I live in South Dakota now.
Me too! I’m so glad we live in a state where we don’t have to worry about crap like that.
This is the problem with popular democracy. Back in 1788, John Adams warned of the “tyranny of the majority,” a more eloquent way of saying “mob rule.” I can understand why our forefathers did not want popular democracy. I’ve come to think that any democratic system eventually falls to mob rule as soon as the mob figures out that they can rule over their neighbors money and life.
Even if this gets passed, it will go through the courts to pass constitutional muster. Majority opinions do not overturn individual rights. See California Proposition 8.
You shouldn’t have a problem with all gun sales being subject to background checks if you have no criminal record. I fail to see the problem. Ya’ll are just as capable of emotional arguments as they are…or aren’t you afraid “Obama’s gonna come get your guns.” Even though he is the best thing that ever happened to the gun industry.
Problem one: the ballot initiative in Washington would make it illegal for me to even loan a gun to a friend for a match, or some other lawful activity without a background check. Like all “universal background check” laws, what it actually does is criminalize the lawful transfer of firearms from one private party to another. So for example, you want to sell a gun to your buddy that you served with in the Army? Tough tootsies, that’s illegal unless you go to a FFL and get a NICS check done.
So what you have is a law that’s impossible to enforce that makes unintentional criminals out of people who do something as simple as loaning a gun to a buddy. Further, and this is important, it’s already illegal to sell a gun to a felon. Seriously, that’s against the law right now.
Finally, don’t give me that “if you have nothing to hide” nonsense. Our legal system is so needlessly byzantine that people commit something like 1 or 2 unintentional crimes every single day without even knowing it.
In order to prevent those who shouldn’t have guns from getting guns I have no problem submitting myself to a NICS check, as a law abiding gun owner neither should you.
Bottom line, the current “checks” in the system are so big you can drive a howitzer through them. Your argument holds no water. Here’s an example from your own blog.
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2014/08/firearmconcierge/customers-wish-never/
As I’ve heard argued before, criminals don’t care about laws anyways and will get a gun any way they can.
However, I don’t want someone with a criminal record able to walk into a gun show, or going to gunbroker.com or hitting up their new “friend” to buy a gun. They are all holes that need to be plugged.
If anything, universal background checks protect you the seller as much as the public. If a crime gets committed with that weapon, the victim’s family can’t come back on you with a wrongful death lawsuit and say you should have known better. The feds certainly can’t come to you and say why didn’t you know, you just ran the check. You have the background check system to hide behind for liability purposes.
But because most of the shooters this list are stupid enough to confuse Obama with Stalin, I’m just pissing in the wind. As you said, we’re all criminals in the system right now anyway…so what the hell does it matter.
So I assume that since you have nothing to hide, you’re okay with the police searching your house without a warrant?
Submitting to a NICS background check is not the same as a warrantless search. You’re attempting to cite a false equivalency. When I purchase or sell a gun, I’m committing a willful action. When a gun transaction takes place, the party being sold to may or may not be entitiled to purchase the gun in question.
When the cops knock down my door without a warrant, they are committing the willful action. A police officer having suspicion of illicit action taking place on a property is not the same as having a warrant to confirm it. If I don’t open the door or invite them in, and they don’t have the piece of paper saying they have the right to enter, they are the party committing a crime.
Tell me, if you had a gun to sell right now, and I said I wanted to buy it, would you give it to me no questions asked so long as I had the cash?
No, since this would be an interstate transfer I’d need you give me a copy of your FFL dealer’s license so I could have shipped to him.
Because that’s already the law.
Also, you’re the one who brought up “nothing to hide.” Just because I have nothing to hide doesn’t mean I want or need the government poking around in my shit. I assume that you’re okay with NYPD’s stop and frisk policy, right? Because if you have nothing to hide, what’s a little inconvenience?
Again, you draw a false equivalency. NICS checks are simply not the same as stop and frisk, or warrantless searches. Until you can bring up a better defense than, I don’t want them in my business, you’re not making an effective argument.
I’m sorry that you can’t see how the government interfering with people who haven’t done anything illegal is bad.
Caleb, it’s not that I don’t see anything wrong with the government interfering with people who haven’t done anything. I just have a problem with groups of people who refuse to have rational discussions and are so intransigent that they insist that they must get all that they want or nobody gets anything. It’s the kind of argument that spoiled children make right before they take their ball and go home. The Bloomburgs and Bradys of the world have it wrong when they think that all guns need to be banned and/or strictly controlled. On the other hand, the Gun Nuts have it wrong when they insist they have the right to a everything up to and including a rocket launcher with no oversight or regulation. My parents taught me that just because you can have or do something, doesn’t necessarily mean that you should. I could give a child a car tomorrow. It does not necessarily mean he is old enough, responsible enough, or legally able to operate it. Guns are no different, and both are tools that can be used for killing. Proper regulation of firearms is not a bad thing, and I’m sorry you can’t see that.
We have proper regulation already.
It’s already illegal to sell or give a firearm to a felon. So why are trying to make it more illegal?
And how are you going to plug those holes? I594 does not plug the holes. All the laws in the world do not prevent people from following the law. It only creates barriers to those who do.
I meant: all the laws do not make people follow the laws.
Daniel S. That’s a cop out and you know it. If laws do no good, why don’t we just do away with them all and make theft and murder legal. There you go problem solved. Then you don’t have to worry about background checks or your murder being solved when the criminal shoots you with the gun he just bought from you.
Here is the issue LiberalGunNut. These laws are called “Mala Prohubitum” Laws. There is nothing inherently dangerous, wrong, or illegal about selling your property to another person, be it a gun or a hammer. A “Mala Prohibitum” law means that it’s illegal because the law says it’s illegal. “Mala en Se” laws punish people who commit crimes that are universally recognized as wrong, like theft and murder.
Making certain acts criminal will not affect people who ignore such laws anyway, but punishing criminals who actually commit reprehensible acts (assault, murder, etc.) could be quite effective. As Caleb says, these types of laws (Mala Prohibitum) are nearly impossible to enforce. You should also look into the effectiveness of the NICS system (I.E. how many people it has kept from buying guns since enacted). Hint: it’s not very effective.
The bottom line: Look at the numbers. Look at the last 10 high profile mass shootings in this country and you will see that the background check system is ALREADY being subverted in various ways by criminals intent on killing. Look at the murder rates in places where gun ownership is ALREADY tightly regulated and everyone must undergo a background check.
That is why we don’t need background checks on all purchases. Any other reasoning is, in my opinion, a straw man argument. We don’t need them because they don’t work. Period.
How will this law “prevent those who shouldn’t have guns from getting guns”?
That’s not from his blog.
The “gunshow loophole” doesn’t exist, it hasn’t for years now. Any licensed dealer has to perform a background check at a gunshow, for every gun he sells. Private sellers do not, but that’s no different than a private party sale outside of one.
Gunbroker, like every other internet sales site, is unable to sell you a gun without shipping it to a local FFL (Federally licensed dealer), who is then required to, you guessed it, run a background check before you’re allowed to take possession.
If you want to seem like you know what you’re talking about, you shouldn’t talk on subjects you know nothing about. Or call anyone else stupid, when your own lack of information is so blatant.
We’ve had the background system in place for what, 30 years now?
how many criminals has it stopped? How many prohibited persons were stopped from buying a gun and subsequently arrested and successfully prosecuted for the felony of attempting to purchase?
how many people have been successfully prosecuted for knowingly lying on the forms?
How many totally non-dangerous people have gone to prison for paperwork errors?
How much is it costing us each year for useless, ineffective checks?
If it interferes with my natural rights, it had better be damn effective, otherwise why do we have it?
How would you feel if you had to pay a fee for a background check every time you went to the polls to vote?
Oh wait, that’s unconstitutional.
I shouldn’t have to pay a fee or expose myself to additional scrutiny to exercise my rights.
Josh, by that logic then, speed limits do no good, traffic signals are worthless, and drunk driving laws don’t work. Yet they are generally observed by law abiding citizens. Yes they do some measure of good. Tell me, would you have great sympathy for someone the prosecution could prov killed a child in a subdivision while; driving at excessive speeds and while drunk? If you sat on that jury and were asked to judge them after seeing clear evidence of the act would you have a problem convicting them to a long sentence? Mala Prohubitum laws do work when properly written and when there is a system in place that enforces them.
I agree with you in as much as I think the biggest problem is that we have poorly written laws that are unevenly and/or poorly enforced. A properly integrated and highly enforced NICS system used for universal background checks to keep criminals and the mentally impaired is not a bad thing. If we had a properly constructed and enforced system in place that required checks on private gun sales, gun show sales, and integration and mental state assessment, it would have a deterrent effect. In the cases of the Gabby Giffords, Virginia Tech, and the Aurora CO shootings would likely prevented some of them.
So you’ve never run a red light? Never broke a speed limit? I think that driving drunk is considered reprehensible by most people, if not at least severely negligent. You are not going to be swayed I can see. So I will end with this: Background checks DO NOT WORK. This is not a theory. Look it up.
There is no way this Universal Background Check scheme works without a gun registry. Once that registry is established, It will be used to confiscate firearms.
LiberalGunNut – We can remove the GunNut part from your name. You are a liberal period.
Democrats = Gun Control = Registration = Confiscation
This statement is true and has been since the beginning. The real intent of the new progressive
liberal controlled democratic party is to disarm citizens. You can false equivalent that all you want
but it does not change the facts. Even if this prop passes it will challenged in court and will lose.
If you fail to see the problem you need to think harder. I go to a match, my buddies gun breaks, I hand him my backup gun, I am a felon, I lose my gun rights. Look back and see who said that the best way to control citizens is to make everyone a criminal. He was not a nice guy. These guys are not real nice either.
Matt,
If you read the law, it specifically covers the scenario you just described, you’re covered.
“(4) This section does not apply to:…
(a) A transfer between immediate family members, which for this
subsection shall be limited to spouses, domestic partners, parents,
children, siblings, grandparents, grandchildren, nieces, nephews,
first cousins, aunts, and uncles, that is a bona fide gift;
(b) The sale or transfer of an antique firearm;
(c) A temporary transfer of possession of a firearm if such
transfer is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm
to the person to whom the firearm is transferred if:
(i) The temporary transfer only lasts as long as immediately necessary to prevent such imminent death or great bodily harm; and
(ii) The person to whom the firearm is transferred is not prohibited from possessing firearms under state or federal law;
(d) Any law enforcement or corrections agency and, to the extent the person is acting within the course and scope of his or her employment or official duties, any law enforcement or corrections officer, United States marshal, member of the armed forces of the United States or the national guard, or federal official;Code Rev/AI:eab 9 I-2745.1/13
(e) A federally licensed gunsmith who receives a firearm solely for the purposes of service or repair, or the return of the firearm to its owner by the federally licensed gunsmith;
(f) The temporary transfer of a firearm
(i) between spouses or domestic partners;
(ii) if the temporary transfer occurs, and the firearm is kept at all times, at an established shooting range authorized by the governing body of the jurisdiction in which such range is located;
(iii) if the temporary transfer occurs and the transferee’s possession of the firearm is exclusively at a lawful
organized competition involving the use of a firearm, or while participating in or practicing for a performance by an organized group that uses firearms as a part of the performance;
(iv) to a person who is under eighteen years of age for lawful hunting, sporting, or educational purposes while under the direct supervision and control of a responsible adult who is not prohibited from possessing firearms; or
(v) while hunting if the hunting is legal in all places where the person to whom the firearm is transferred possesses the firearm and the person to whom the firearm is transferred has completed all training and holds all licenses or permits required for such hunting, provided that any temporary transfer allowed by this subsection is permitted only if the person to whom the firearm is transferred is not prohibited from possessing firearms under state or federal law; or
(g) A person who (i) acquired a firearm other than a pistol by
operation of law upon the death of the former owner of the firearm or
(ii) acquired a pistol by operation of law upon the death of the
former owner of the pistol within the preceding sixty days. At the
end of the sixty-day period, the person must either have lawfully
transferred the pistol or must have contacted the department of
licensing to notify the department that he or she has possession of
the pistol and intends to retain possession of the pistol, in
compliance with all federal and state laws.”
Yep, as written I594 is garbage legislation that needs to be buried and the voters of WA are the only people who can bury it. Also as is mentioned often, the real issue isn’t lack of laws, it’s the lack of enforcement or ability to enforce them.
I hope someone tacks on an amendment to require all used cars be sold to or transferred by a dealer who will make sure the buyer has a valid license, insurance and no outstanding tickets.
> especially if you’re swinging Paul Allen levels of money
… and Bill Gates, and Nick Hanauer, and Michael Bloomberg, and who knows how many other billionaires and multi-millionaires. Funny how the “Occupy Wall Street” crowd doesn’t mind the 1% influencing elections to disarm the 99%.
Corporations prefer unarmed workers. They used to settle labor disputes differently back in the “good ol’ days”.
The same people who display outrage that having to show a photo I.D. to vote once every two or four years is an intolerable violation of the 14th Amendment, 15th Amendment, 19th Amendment, 24th Amendment, 26th Amendment, and the Voting Rights Act of 1965…
…repeatedly insult our intelligence when they deny that laws which require
(1) BOTH BUYER AND SELLER to travel to a federally licensed firearms dealer (a.k.a. “FFL dealer”) ; 70% of whom were intentionally regulated out-of-business in the 1990s by the Clinton administration.
(2) BOTH BUYER AND SELLER to show a current state-issued photo I.D. to the FFL dealer.
(3) the FFL dealer to log information about both the buyer and seller, which can be inspected at any time by federal officers without a warrant
(4) the buyer to fill out a Form 4473 UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY ( “I also understand that making any false oral or written statement, or exhibiting any false or misrepresented identification with respect to this transaction, is a crime punishable as a felony under Federal law, and may also violate State and/or local law” ),
(5) in some states, the buyer to pay a fee to The State for the “privilege” of proving that he is not criminal
(6) pay an additional fee to the FFL dealer
(7) and wait for permission from the government before completing the transaction
are not a violation of our 2nd Amendment rights and an attempt to disarm us.
Until last year, I believed that the biggest threat to our freedom was the unchecked power of corporations (based on personal experience, it’s a long story). Oligarchy has oppressed people for thousands of years, while socialism is a relatively recent invention. I still believe that conservatives and libertarians — having long ago abandoned their ideals of “economic liberty” and “free markets” to instead fetishize corporations and the oligarchs — are fools for not seeing that threat, but now I have more immediate concerns.
As someone who regularly traded firearms with, bought firearms from, sold firearms to, received firearms as gifts from, and gifted firearms to my friends, I am tangibly less free than I was two years ago, because my state passed a “universal background checks” law in 2013; along with a law restricting the size of certain boxes with springs in them. What we as consenting adults used to do on a regular basis in the privacy of our own homes is now a crime.
Because the Democrat Party hates us. Their mask came off last year, to reveal a pure, raw, unfiltered hate. I get it, and I hate them back.
Gun owner control is not about reducing crime. It is about Democrats viewing private gun ownership as a deviant activity which needs to be eliminated instead of as a right to be protected, and wanting to force their morality on the rest of us.
No I believe it is a more basic right than that. It’s the right to be able to leave your home and be in public with out fear of being shot by a “good guy with a gun” because he doesn’t like the way you look. People with guns kill other living creatures, it really is that simple. They’re not used for playing tiddlywinks.
> the right to be able to leave your home
> and be in public with out fear
Which group commits violent crimes at a per-capita rate above that of the general population? You can choose more than one answer. For extra credit, rank them in order.
01. men
02. women
03. whites
04. blacks
05. Hispanics
06. Eskimos
07. white Southern males
08. illegal aliens
09. police officers
10. gun owners
11. inmates in prison
12. gays
13. NFL players
14. owners of small dogs
15. people who write “Twilight” fan fiction
If you are really concerned about reducing crime, or even just reducing fear and perception of crime, then we should have “a discussion about violence”, not a “discussion about gun violence” which pre-supposes the answer. Because if you are really sincere about reducing crime and fear — and I do not believe that you are — then you need to concentrate your efforts and scarce resources on where they will have the most effect. But being serious about this would reveal some very ugly truths that we don’t want to face, and suggest policies that no decent-thinking person should ever want.
> 11. inmates in prison
See the graph at
http://billllsidlemind.blogspot.com/2013/02/crime-rates-falling-everywhere.html
which compares “Homicde Rates in Local Jails, State Prisons, and the United States per 100,000 Inmates/Population”
Hint: putting an entire group of people into cages doesn’t make much of a difference.
For someone that calls himself a gun nuts, you’re really clued into gun culture very well.
Yes I am, I just don’t agree with many of the stances of gun culture.
LiberalGunNut said: “No I believe it is a more basic right than that. It’s the right to be able to leave your home and be in public with out fear of being shot by a “good guy with a gun” because he doesn’t like the way you look.”
Seriously?!?! How old are you? Grow up, Peter Pan. Yeah, I’d like to live “without fear” when I leave my house, but life IS risk; some big, some small. I’d like to ride my magic unicorn to work on a rainbow….but it isn’t going to happen, either.
Look, I’m not trying to start an interwebz flame-war, but you accuse Caleb and those of us opposed to this bill/law of being susceptible to “…. Ya’ll are just as capable of emotional arguments as they are…”, and then you throw out YOUR emotional argument about your perceived right to “feel safe” on planet Earth.
Yes, the Declaration of Independence articulates, “…We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”, but there is no guarantee/right to a certain “feeling”. Whether you “feel” safe or not is irrelevant, it’s tangible actions that are of concern; and legally actionable.
LiberalGunNut said: “…or aren’t you afraid “Obama’s gonna come get your guns?” ANSWER: YES!!!!!
Well, actually, he and his ideological cohorts don’t have the nerve to do the actual confiscation, but they will send others to do it in their place. The left loves to mock 2A defenders with that line but fail to acknowledge that there has been, and will continue to be, a steady drumbeat of initiatives like this:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-launches-gun-violence-task-force/2012/12/19/90ff2d52-49f9-11e2-b6f0-e851e741d196_story.html.
Let me ask YOU: why are you (and the left in general) so afraid of liberty and freedom? Why are you afraid of someone owning a certain rifle, or bullet, or tank? Those are inanimate objects and it’s a person’s (harmful) actions that matter, not what they own.
What you fail to understand is that when my ideological enemy, or anyone for that matter, blatantly tells me what his/her intentions are, I’ll believe it until proven otherwise.
You may be a gun loving liberal that we could enjoy a day at the range together, but what you fail to comprehend (maybe you do get it….who knows?) is that those of us on the “right” have seen nothing but years of progressive incrementalism to reduce the individual liberties of American citizens. You appear to be willing to give up portions of your God given rights while many of us are not (and don’t even start on all of the laws that a society must have in order to function smoothly- e.g. traffic laws).
Also, help me understand, something: if more laws are the answer, what’s wrong with the laws currently prohibiting murder/assault/robbery, etc.? If murder is already illegal because we passed that law, why do we need gun laws? It’s already against the law to murder so what does it matter if the victim was killed with a gun, knife, or a toothbrush? Is someone extra-dead because they were murdered with a gun?
Laws like I-594 won’t reduce (gun) violence because they are designed to control people’s behavior, not the guns. This is nothing but the government’s incrementalism, yet again, into the individual’s life.
And finally (thank God!), LiberalGunNut said:
“People with guns kill other living creatures, it really is that simple. They’re not used for playing tiddlywinks.”
You are so right! History has taught me that most of those “people with guns” are of the government variety, and believe me, they know they’re not playing tiddlywinks! And, if they’re not the .gov type, they are criminals….but I repeat myself.
Wow, I really took the bait on this one…..didn’t mean to write so much!
Have a Great Weekend!
Mr. Breeze
Troll
That is so idiotic. How about the people that defe3nd themselfs every day with guns? Do they have the right to live?
I am done feeding the troll.
I believe in my right not to get killed by irresponsible driver texting or DUI, when are they going to make a lwa about that? Your chances of getting killed by such a driver are actually much higher of being targeted by “Good Guy with a gun”, besides such an arbitrary shooting would most likely be done by a “Bad Guy with a Gun”.
Liberal Gun Nut I believe….No, I KNOW your fears are highly misplaced if you are afraid of being shot by “A good guy with a gun”. You only have to watch the news or look up statistics to realize your chances of being shot (by ANYONE) on purpose or by accident are very very slim! About 0.0009% in the USA. There are no figures for being shot by a “Good guy with a gun” but I hazard to guess its a lot less then getting struck by lighting (about 2,600 per year with 26 deaths). You are more likely to get killed on you way to work than to be shot by a “good guy with a gun”. Feel good laws such as these only really effect law abiding citizens and rarely have any effect to deterring or decreasing actual crime. I believe your “right to not get shot by a good guy with a gun” at (I’m estimating here) somewhere LESS than 0.000002% DO NOT trump my right to not get shot by a BAD guy with a gun (which is about 100 time more likely than being shot by a GOOD guy with a gun). Not to mention the chance I may be assaulted and robbed if denied the chance to defend myself. So your miss placed, misguided fears DO NOT trump OUR rights!
There is no such things as a right to not be afraid, dipshit. It’s not a human right, it’s not a civil right. If it was considered either of those, people with clinical phobias would be getting showered with settlement money left and right because they are constantly afraid.
On any given day in any given year, I am much more likely to be assaulted by a criminal intent on doing me harm, than I am to be shot by a lawful concealed-carrier who mistakes me for a criminal. The latter simply does not happen often enough to be considered statistically relevant when compared to the former.
If people are already able to leave their homes without being afraid of being assaulted by a criminal, there is no reason for them to be more afraid if CCW becomes legal in their area.
It is ridiculous to suggest otherwise.
How to not get killed with a gun:
Don’t go do stupid things with stupid people at stupid hours.
Seriously, that right there reduces your risk ten-fold.
As far as being mistakenly shot by a good guy with a gun while not doing the above, I’d like you to cite some examples, because that happens less often than winning the powerball.
> laws which require
> (1) BOTH BUYER AND SELLER to travel to
> a federally licensed firearms dealer
> (a.k.a. “FFL dealer”) ; 70% of whom were
> intentionally regulated out-of-business
> in the 1990s by the Clinton administration.
These same people are also having a coniption since the anti-abortion movement has adopted the tactics of the gun owner control movement.
Look at the reaction by the Democrats whenever anybody proposes legislation that would regulate an abortion clinic as an ambulatory clinic, requiring abortion providers to have admitting privileges to local hospitals. Democrats cry that this will result in the closure of abortion clinics, requiring women seeking an abortion — something they may do once in their entire lives — to travel farther.
“Why bother making it illegal if you can just make it impossible to get” has been the strategy of the gun owner control lobby for decades. While suppressing citizens who are trying to exercise a right explicitly enumrated in the constitution is perfectly acceptable, such an inconvience is an intolerable violation of whatever rights are to be found in that document’s “penumbras and eminations”. So much so that
The motto of the Democrat Party should be “We support a woman’s Right To Choose ™, unless we disagree with her choice”.
Note: the above is not meant to either support or oppose abortion policies in this country, a highly contentious topic, but simply to highlight the hypocrisy of the gun owner control crowd. Personally, I believe you should be allowed to abort your kids until they move out of the house and are supporting themselves.
LiberalGunNut, the way I594 is written, I can’t even hand you a gun to look at in my presence without doing a $50 background check. I hand you a gun, it’s a Gross Misdemeanor, you hand it back it’s a Class 2 Felony FOR BOTH OF US. A husband cannot even leave a firearm where a spouse can have access to it.
Never heard of anyone being shot by a “good guy with a gun”, at least intentionally. I do appreciate having “good guys with guns” around me when I leave my house. The bad guys with guns however do not appreciate them.
How does my ethnic group, race or gender make any difference on a gun purchase. What is next? Sexual preference, religion.This surely closes a BIG loophole that was in the “right” to buy a gun. We should feel safer now.
Murder and mayhem existed before guns.
In the time of sword and steel, most folks were helpless, especially women.
Guns equalized that and make the weakest among us the equal of the strongest among us.
The NRA has mostly ignored this and done virtually nothing in this fight, only small blurbs in the American Rifleman, yet they keep asking for more money. My own actions to educate and inform my neighbors and others about this has done more then the NRA has. I am not going to give the NRA any more money anymore, they have betrayed me and my state. The pro I-594 side has been playing ads allover the local channels with lies and exaggeration about I-594, the NRA would not spend a dime on a media campaign to counter it. I hope the NRA execs choke on their excessive salaries, which is all they are really want when they ask for donations. Major fail for 2nd amendment rights here. 🙁
Frankly, I’m surprised it took this long for the “blame the NRA” crowd to show up.
Wrong as usual, though.
Did you actually read my reply? Or did you just see NRA and spout? I said the NRA is doing nothing to oppose this atrocious bit of legislative heavy handedness. I blamed the NRA for inaction.
NRA is doing quite a lot, but trying to outspend Bloomberg, Ballmer and Gates would just be throwing money down a hole. Better to just buy a boat.
I’m curious as to if everyone commenting has read the whole text of I-594. There is a reason that LE (as well as the NRA) opposes this initiative. The background loophole philosophical argument is one thing–and we can debate that–but this bill criminalizes an instructor shooting my gun in a class, or me shooting the instructors. It criminalizes me allowing a couple of buddies to try out, say, my Glock 42 to see if they like it, while at the old shooting hole. Unless it’s your kid, your dad, your wife, a domestic partner (however the law defines that) or some other defined family members, handing a gun to them will be against the law, as it’s a transfer.
Pardon my bluntness, but that’s shit. Once again, law written by people who don’t fully understand what they’re regulating… or maybe they do fully understand what they’re doing. Either way, millions were spent on this one, and us WA residents are going to take it in the shorts. I hope both Caleb and I are very very wrong, but I doubt it.
The NRA is not opposing it. They are sitting quiet on the side lines. Not one ad in opposition on the local stations. Meanwhile the former PD Chief of Bellingham, WA is selling it like the hottest idea since hot cakes in one of the pro I-594 ads. Lots of misleading/false statements about gun show loopholes, safety of officers and felons buying guns without a NICS check on websites like Gunbroker. Not all PD are opposing it, mostly as they are bought and paid for by the anti-gunners and are grossly misinformed. I-594 will do nothing to keep guns out of criminal hands, just another feel good band-aid that hurts the law abiding citizen only.
What does it mean for those of us who have done face to face transfers in the past? How screwed are we?
Nothing, this is not retroactive. Just make sure you have papers to prove it.
I’m as big a gun nut as anyone here. I shoot IPSC, IDPA, 3-Gun, and pretty much anything else I can where I live near Seattle. I’ve even squaded with Caleb but I’m sure he doesn’t have a clue who I am. I got pretty worked up reading some of the comments above. I’d much rather not have this law because I agree it’s only going to affect law abiding citizens. But. If you check the law, there are, seemingly, sections that allow for spouses, instructors, me, buddies, kids, and whomever else to swap guns “at the shooting hole.”
Text Here: http://sos.wa.gov/_assets/elections/initiatives/FinalText_483.pdf
Some of the key bits and pieces here. Section 4, Subsection f seems to be the key area we’re interested in?
“(4) This section does not apply to:…
(a) A transfer between immediate family members, which for this
subsection shall be limited to spouses, domestic partners, parents,
children, siblings, grandparents, grandchildren, nieces, nephews,
first cousins, aunts, and uncles, that is a bona fide gift;
(b) The sale or transfer of an antique firearm;
(c) A temporary transfer of possession of a firearm if such
transfer is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm
to the person to whom the firearm is transferred if:
(i) The temporary transfer only lasts as long as immediately necessary to prevent such imminent death or great bodily harm; and
(ii) The person to whom the firearm is transferred is not prohibited from possessing firearms under state or federal law;
(d) Any law enforcement or corrections agency and, to the extent the person is acting within the course and scope of his or her employment or official duties, any law enforcement or corrections officer, United States marshal, member of the armed forces of the United States or the national guard, or federal official;Code Rev/AI:eab 9 I-2745.1/13
(e) A federally licensed gunsmith who receives a firearm solely for the purposes of service or repair, or the return of the firearm to its owner by the federally licensed gunsmith;
(f) The temporary transfer of a firearm
(i) between spouses or domestic partners;
(ii) if the temporary transfer occurs, and the firearm is kept at all times, at an established shooting range authorized by the governing body of the jurisdiction in which such range is located;
(iii) if the temporary transfer occurs and the transferee’s possession of the firearm is exclusively at a lawful
organized competition involving the use of a firearm, or while participating in or practicing for a performance by an organized group that uses firearms as a part of the performance;
(iv) to a person who is under eighteen years of age for lawful hunting, sporting, or educational purposes while under the direct supervision and control of a responsible adult who is not prohibited from possessing firearms; or
(v) while hunting if the hunting is legal in all places where the person to whom the firearm is transferred possesses the firearm and the person to whom the firearm is transferred has completed all training and holds all licenses or permits required for such hunting, provided that any temporary transfer allowed by this subsection is permitted only if the person to whom the firearm is transferred is not prohibited from possessing firearms under state or federal law; or
(g) A person who (i) acquired a firearm other than a pistol by
operation of law upon the death of the former owner of the firearm or
(ii) acquired a pistol by operation of law upon the death of the
former owner of the pistol within the preceding sixty days. At the
end of the sixty-day period, the person must either have lawfully
transferred the pistol or must have contacted the department of
licensing to notify the department that he or she has possession of
the pistol and intends to retain possession of the pistol, in
compliance with all federal and state laws.”
Nowhere in the Wall of Text that you quoted is this common situation allowed:
You and I are on either public or private land, and decide to shoot each other’s firearms. We’ve got the approval of the landowner, and are both otherwise legal.
Boom, instant felony. Enjoy your crappy law.
I am not a gun fanatic. I do not and have never belonged to the NRA. I do believe in safety and responsibility and seek this. I am an American citizen, I am not a Veteran. I do support our Constitution, am wary and cautious to vote for anything which would modify my basic Rights, and know when there is a snake in the grass. I absolutely positively know the purpose of I-594 is to mislead the general public to obtain votes therein reaching their true goal. After I actually read the Initiative it was obvious this is a NO VOTE as it is simply not going to do anything but create problems, not solve them.
The bottom line is 594 is selling a false sense of security using fear, the feel-good message, and throwing money at it; conjecture. An informed person on either side of the gun issues could see I-594 is a poor Initiative and will vote NO. It’s simply a bad Initiative first, the fact it addresses guns is secondary. The uninformed may think, “I may as well vote for this as closing a “loophole” in the law can’t hurt, it can only help, right?” If this is you, you are being made a fool of by huge money and propaganda. If we were thinking science, these folks are taking a hypothesis and calling it a tested reproducible matter, a fact.
There actually is no loophole.There is no data supporting what they state (the “loophole”) regarding how criminals obtain firearms. Yes, firearms are obtained, but not likely through this said “loophole.” They’ve taken something which is not an issue, not been of any absolute definable factual problem, and manufactured a problem. The loophole they are selling is created by this group, attacking the law-abiding, condescending to them as if they were apt to be tempted to sell gun after gun to convicted criminals. I’m not lying here, there is a possibility to sell a firearm, like Grandpa’s old rifle, to a friend without a check. And the promoted gun-show argument? Could it happen, truthfully yes it could. BUT there is no proof it does happen, and if it did the number is a fraction of a percent. But it is 99.9% sure it doesn’t; are you beginning to get the picture?
Stop and think for one second and realize convicted criminals typically acquire guns which are illegal, hand-made, no serial numbers or as often happens, stolen! These are statistics you can source, real numbers, not a belief, a fantasy, delusion or conjecture! If you were a convicted criminal, why would you go to a gun show and risk being found out, questioned? You wouldn’t and their is no evidence supporting they do. Sure, someone who is ill might try but they are typically found out. It would be more common for a convicted criminal to hang out in the parking lot and bang you over the head then steal your new legally obtained firearm!
To add, you do realize the overwhelming majority of business conducted at a Show is done by FFL dealers who conduct background checks. Guns are not slipping through the cracks under the tent out back, behind a shelf, or in a dark corner of the show. But I swear the Initiative’s supporters clearly imply this goes on all the time and is common. Complete baloney, but they’ll sell it to you as fact if you are ready to swallow.
Again understand I-594 is conjecture having little to base truth on, relying on spin and lying to us. It is long, full of words and will certainly be misunderstood, up for interpretation and has all the makings of a poorly constructed product.
I suggest a Yes Vote on I-591 as it is concise and concrete, as an Initiative must be to be effective and enforced.
You lost creditability with the “F” word
I’m actually kind of hoping 591 AND 594 pass. They’re contradictory pieces and enforcement would be clear, invalidating 594 utterly.
Also remember that issues like these get the libertarians in eastern Washington all riled up, and they’re a more reliable voting block than the Seattle liberals.
Having skimmed and in some cases thoroughly read all of the comments on this site. I am not a troll; however, the rabid, and sometimes hateful responses I got to my comments are about what I’ve come to expect from the drooling, mindless, right-wing crowd whenever they encounter an opinion contrary to their own. A constitutional right to own a gun DOES NOT override the other rights for American Citizens enumerated in the Constitution. The one that y’all seem to conveniently assume is over-ridden by the 2nd amendment is the General Welfare Clause in the opening of the Constitution.
The General Welfare clause is a section that provides that the governing body empowered by the Constitution may enact laws to promote the general welfare of the people, sometimes worded as the public welfare. This is the basis for legislation promoting the health, safety, morals, and well-being of the people governed thereunder (also known as the police power). Such clauses are generally interpreted as granting the state broad power to legislate or regulate for the general welfare that is independent of other powers specified in the Constitution.
The simple fact of the matter is contrary to your popular belief, there is a balance that always needs to be achieved between personal liberty and protecting the public welfare. Until BOTH SIDES acknowledge this simple fact, THEY ARE BOTH WRONG!
I do love firing and owning my guns, I actively hunt, conceal carry, and believe in the 2nd amendment. I also firmly believe that our current raft of firearms laws are f-ed up and need to be thrown out, re-written, and rigidly enforced.
Having said all of that, I have read I 594, and while it is not a great law, it isn’t horrible either from my perspective. The things I would change is to add a clause in section 3 to that I would broaden the temporary transfer exceptions to include close friends, and define time limits and transfers of use when in the presence of the owner (i.e. I want to let you fire my gun out on the range or on the back 40. So long as I’m supervising the use of my gun and the supervisee is not ineligible to operate it, there should be no criminal infringement.
The bottom line weather you like it or not is that there is a significant portion of the population that does see having the highest gun murder rate in the industrialized world as a problem. To make the point even more salient, there are countries in Europe who do a credible job balancing gun ownership with gun regulation, the two countries that come to mind are Norway and Switzerland. Both countries have far lower gun crime rates than America, and have some of the highest rates of gun ownership in Europe.
=
While the gun control people do have their faults (and in some cases they are egregious) among the saner factions they realize that there is the balance I’ve spoken of earlier. What I see in i 594 is an attempt at accomodation and an acknowledgement of a problem. The 2A crowd’s biggest issue is that they don’t see any problems with the system other than they’re afraid their guns are going to be taken from them. Heaven forbid they should rise to the challenge of trying to craft an acceptable change or even admit that there might actually be a problem.
If you’re even brave enough to admit that there might actually be a problem, what would you do to plug the holes, while maintianing your freedoms? Or are you okay with making it easy for criminals and the mentally insane having easy access to guns? My bet is that I’m only going to hear whining about how liberals want to take away guns, the government is too big already, a right is a right, there is no problem, we’re not other countries, or “freedom!”.
I say stop sucking your thumb, put your big girl panties on, and come to the table and discuss the problem like an adult.
And let’s see you put your big girl panties on and please tell us who you’re working for.
It is getting rather close to election time, and all the paid social media shills are starting to creep out of the woodwork.
I speak for myself Mr. Blue, who do you work for or are you retired.
Really? Funny how the frequency of the anti gun posters tends to increase a few months before major elections… then those folks go away once the election is over.
And funny how we’re told- frequently- how major corporations use paid shills to post on social media to hawk their wares, or smother criticism of products.
Political campaigns also do stuff that major corporations do.
Thus, it is not a stretch to assume that the guy showing up out of the middle of nowhere, a few moths before the elections is very likely a paid shill.
But I could be wrong. You may just be an unpaid intern.
Mr Blue,
You’re right, because it’s completely outside the realm of possibility that a liberal who enjoys guns might take an interest in an opinion piece on a gun site. Therefore the paranoid viewpoint dictates that of course it must be a corporate conspiracy and I must be a paid shill.
There’s no possibility that I just don’t agree with the conservative viewpoint.
Do please remember that paranoia=right wing thing during the next two minute hate featuring the Koch brothers, or the next time you visit Adbusters, Mother Jones, or other similar sites.
Ok mister ‘liberal’. I object to the addition of new laws when the old ones are so rarely enforced. We have a means of catching felons attempting to buy guns… If they have attempted a check and are denied because of a felony. we arrest them.
I call you ‘liberal’ because I object to the way your side has twisted and tainted the word a word which stood for freedom and an ideology that argues for each man to be allowed to do and live as they wish as long as they do not impact on annother rights. My owning of an item.doesn’t impact.on your rights, my using an item safely on my land doesn’t either btw.
I object to the way that words like ‘reasonable’ have been twisted to paint those who disagree with your position as intolerant.
It is already illegal for me to sell a Firearm. To a felon or.an out of state resident or a minor. If we catch people doing those things arrest them.
Look at the records of the mass killers, many were reported to the authorities many times before the tragedy happened but.. The laws on the books weren’t enforced, people weren’t monitored as they should have been and in some cases people were hurt because the authorities refused to act as they have a duty to.
Carers of these people asking for help and in some.cases BEGGING the authorities to have the individual taken into secure units.
Enforce the laws we have, change the mental health system and as unpopular as it is going to sound start holding people who are a danger to themselves and others in secure psychiatric units. The shutting of many secure units and the trend for ‘catch and release’ (assess them medicate them and release them on to halfway houses and community care teams only to repeat the cycle when they stop taking their meds because they are ‘cured’ or the voices tell them too). Units with so few beds they can only hold those who have committed a crime, vulnerable ill people being dealt with by the police and prison system because the psych teams can’t handle the numbers.
A system unwilling due to ideology to hold people, to forcibly commit people that doesn’t have the space to hold people who are ‘at risk’ is the perfect breeding ground for disaster because the system.is overworked to the point the only ones who are being held are the ones who have proved beyond a doubt they are dangerous by killing people. When the day to day carers of these people are begging for intervention and the system will not or cannot then there is a problem.
Dumping people back home after 3 days to a month with no oversight to ensure they are keeping to their mediction she dues that are designed to keep them stable and safe just ensures a revolving door that only stops when something awful happens.
Using the general welfare clause to justify intrusions on privacy and diminishing civil rights is about as abhorrent as using the commerce clause to bar me from growing grain to feed my pigs.
You insult and belittle and antagonise all while crying about the mean old gun owners who are insulting you. Well done you are putting on a masterclass in how to use Alinsky’s rules in practice.
Most importantly just listen to this… I have been dragged to the table before, been attacked for refusing to engage and for not ‘compromising’ when all the anti gun crowd mean by that is that I give up everything they ask now in the hope I won’t lose more.
Tell you what when we go to the table can we talk seriously about give and take. You want universal background checks and to eliminate private party transfers. What will you give me in return? What are you willing to.offer in trade?
If every gun sale has to have a full background check then will you offer up a repeal of the Hughes ammendment? As to own a title 2 weapon one needs to pass a background check and have CLEO sign off. As legal machine gun owners have THE lowest crime record of any firearm. One shooting that was done by a cop who would have had access to title 2 weapons via the government anyway.
If I cannot sell a gun to a family member without a background check will you offer to.make the NFA process an instant check?
No 9 month wait for the rubber stamp just a check the forms have been filled in legally, and a NICS phone call and a cheery thank you come again as I leave with my suppressor or my short barrelled rifle.
Will you agree to change the law so a Form 4 is treated just like a 4473. Take the relevant transfer tax online or over the phone and run the check, issue the stamp via e form and be done with it?
Compromise and ‘coming to the table’ involves negotiation and trading of wants. NOT pillorying your opponent as a mean spirited thicko clinging to their bible in some backwoods hell hole because they wouldn’t give up everything you demanded.
Not adding a poison pill to the bill out of pure spite because you lost and BREAKING THE RULES OF THE SENATE to have the ammendment added. Refusing a count of the vote and recording a voice vote as passed regardless of what actually happened.
Compromise is about working with your ‘opponents’ to find a measure both can live with NOT demanding everything and sulking and crying your opponent is a bully because he only gave up half of what you wanted.
Ok Mr. Cynic,
I didn’t say new laws in addition to the old ones. I stated that the system is BROKEN. When something is broken often times the best thing to do is to throw out everything and start over. In this case I think it is, so that’s what I proposed. Start with a clean sheet of paper and build it from the ground up.
You say liberal like it’s an insult, It’s a label I will always wear proudly, and no attempt to slur it from a conservative clown will ever change that. You’re right about the idea being that I leave you alone so long as your right to do or have things don’t impact my rights. But when you act like your rights are the only ones that matter we have a problem. My proposals have been to come to a mutual understanding, to come to the table as you say.
I detest the use of the words “reasonable” and “common sense” by politician…they might as well be four letter words.
I actually think we have more common ground than you think. Your post tells me that you think that there are large portions of the system that are broke too. So I’ll start where you do with the the mental health system. Simply put, I agree with you, stop using jails and prisons as mental health facilities and stop a revolving door policy. First, fund the mental health system properly with an emphasis on long term treatment and mental health record reporting in the cases of things like bi-polar disorders, schizophrenia, and psychosis, containment where necessary, and mandatory reporting by mental health professionals of even minor suspicions of indivduals who may be a danger to to others. Also, compel mental health treatment where required and provide a robust appeal process for those under successful treatment and those who can prove by their actions they are not a danger.
For this conversation a universal background check system is a requirement. With hefty mandatory sentences for knowingly selling to a felon and the same for felons who try to circumvent the system. No loopholes, no exceptions.
Having said that, I think there should also be an appeal mechanism for a one time restoration of gun rights to non-violent felons who have fully served their sentence. If you pay your debt to society and have not hurt anyone, there’s no reason you shouldn’t be considered redeemed
In a nod to personal liberty I will also say there would be a requirement for NO GUN REGISTRATION. In addition I would also grant universal conceal carry and reciprocity with states required to be shall issue, but with states having the ability to determine training requirements.
In addition, I would grant no restrictions on the type of gun that could be owned and operated. That means that full auto weapons would be allowed. However since they are now available to all, I believe that elevated training requirements would be in order. I would also say that any killing done with a fully automatic weapon in anything other than self defense would be punishable by mandatory death penalty in the event of a finding of guilty.
So how’s that for you? No poison pills, no deception, just an attempt to balance things out
If you want to keep commenting here, you better knock it off with the “conservative clown” and “drooling, mindless, right-wing crowd” comments real quick, bucko.
If no offense is given, none will be taken. If Liberal isn’t used as an insult, neither will conservative. I have kept my language clean if not totally civilized
I know a lot of younger shooters read this blog. I hope you’re all paying very close attention to what “LiberalGunNut” is spouting here.
This is what they sound like. These are the tactics they use. Pay real close attention, and learn.
see my reply to Mr. Cynic above, have you seen that before?
LiberalGunNut.
Yes, I’ve heard it all before.
I’m going to list about three things in your screeds that I’ve heard before, and then point out the huge glaring contradiction in your ideas that shows you’re either a troll, or haven’t thought this through enough to be taken seriously.
1) Liberal smugness.
I spent almost 20 years working in higher education, surrounded every day by lots of proudly self-identifying liberals. In my experience, lots of liberals consider themselves to be so smart, caring and sensitive that the only people who disagree with them at all do so out of stupidity, ignorance or depravity. Nobody who disagrees with a liberal could possibly have any logic or truth or facts on their side. And if they do, well, those are “hate facts.”
You demonstrate typical liberal smugness when you call us all paranoid and demand that we put on our “big girl panties” and “come to the table” for a “conversation.
Of course, when liberals demand that we who disagree come to the table for a conversation, it means we are to prostrate ourselves for a two-minutes hate, as liberals screech and yowl about how stupid and paranoid and backward we are. Then liberals get to list all the rights, liberties and freedoms we are to surrender to satisfy the liberals.
2) Mandatory Mental Health reporting?
Are you freaking serious? For real? You’ll make it a crime for a mental health professional to not report anybody he or she feels or thinks, in the remotest, slightest way, might be, could be, perhaps someday dangerous?
First, lots of “liberal” shrinks out there believe that the mere fact that any of us grubby peasants actually want to own a (gasp!) gun is prima facie evidence that we are dangerous.
Second, you make the reporting mandatory, and nobody who’s serious about keeping their guns will ever go see a mental health professional ever again. Even if they really need to.
Yeah, great idea, that.
3) Appeal Mechanism for Rights restoration for felons?
Oh man. Surely your gun-debate-fu cannot be this weak, right?
You do realize that there used to be an appeal mechanism for the ATF to restore gun rights for non-violent felons, but it was defunded in 1992 during the Clinton Administration? Defunded by a LIBERAL DEMOCRAT-CONTROLLED CONGRESS. I mean c’mon. At least do a little research.
4) Mandatory Universal Background Checks ARE Gun Registration.
Let me say that again.
Mandatory Universal Background Checks ARE Gun Registration.
Even if you disallow recording of serial numbers, and descriptions of guns.
Let me explain.
Luther wants to buy a gun from Jethro. Luther goes through the Mandatory Universal Background Check that proves he bought a gun from Jethro. A few years later, the mighty government that liberals worship and adore decides Luther can’t have that gun anymore. They know he has a gun. There’s a Mandatory Universal Background Check in the database.
They can go and demand Luther produce the gun. If Luther cannot produce the gun, well, it looks like he illegally transferred it without anybody having to do a Mandatory Universal Background Check, don’t it?
Let’s say I have 11 Universal Background Checks records in the database. The government that all liberals worship and adore shows up at my door, and demands to see my 11 guns.
Uh oh, I’ve only got 10 guns, not 11.
That means I obviously illegally transferred on to somebody else without a Universal Mandatory Background Check! Cha-ching! I’m a felon.
One more time, so you might understand.
Your final point about “No Gun Registration” shows you don’t know what you’re talking about, Skippy.
Because MANDATORY Universal Background Checks for every single transfer ARE Gun Registration.
SeenItBefore
September 25, 2014 at 18:28
SeenItBefore
You’ve heard it all before?
I’m glad you’ve heard it all before, I guess that means that you have all the solutions right? Guess what, I’ve heard all of your counters (or variants thereof before too) from conservatives and 2A advocates. SO WHAT?!?
I’m going to list and counter your responses about three things in your screeds that I’ve heard before, and then point out the huge glaring contradiction in your ideas that shows you’re either a troll, or haven’t thought this through enough to be taken seriously.
1) Conservative condescension
I have spent at least the last 15 years in the midwest and south surrounded every day by lots of patronizing and condescending conservatives. In my experience, conservatives consider themselves so smart, righteous, independent, and so self-sufficient that they don’t need anyone. If you’re not exactly like them, you’re stupid, ungodly, or just plain lazy and probably deserve what you get if something unfortunate should happen to you. Nobody who disagrees with a conservative could possibly have an active brain cell. If they do have any truth or facts on their side, well they “just don’t understand us.” Then conservatives get to state how a right, is a right, is a right, Never mind all the rights, liberties and freedoms we are to surrender in the pursuit of unlimited gun rights.
2) No concession is enough
Of course, when liberals do “come to the table” and ask you to give some ground on the hard issues, “we demand too much.” It doesn’t seem to matter how much we might give, you guys act like what we ask for in return for our concessions are completely non-negotiable. Because of course the issues we identify are not the real root of the problem, and any proposed solutions wouldn’t change anything. Never mind the fact that in THIS case, the concessions that were proposed will cause LEOs and true hard line gun control advocates to stroke out AND give the gun community things they don’t have now.
I guess opening up the right to automatic weapons with modest training requirements and universal conceal carry aren’t worth anything to you.
3) Mandatory Mental Health reporting?
In a word YES! For the simple reason that almost every major mass murder incident in the last 15 years have had severe mental illness at the root. The simple fact of the matter is that giving the mentally ill access to firearms is a prescription for trouble and we both know it. While my plan was not perfect, the idea was sound. So again I say YES! Furthermore, I challenge YOU to propose a better solution.
5) Appeal Mechanism for Rights restoration for felons?
Really, you’re so bitter that you’re going to try and ping me on this? Tell me, what’s the current mechanism for non-violent felons, who have successfully paid their debt to society, for easily regaining their right to legally possess firearms? Oh yeah, effectively speaking, they don’t have one.
Under the provisions of the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA), convicted felons and certain other persons are prohibited from possessing or receiving firearms. The GCAprovides the Attorney General with the authority to grant relief from this disability where the Attorney General determines that the person is not likely to act in a manner dangerous to the public safety and granting relief would not be contrary to the public interest. The Attorney General delegated this authority to ATF.
Since October 1992, however, ATF’s annual appropriation has prohibited the expending of any funds to investigate or act upon applications for relief from Federal firearms disabilities submitted by individuals. As long as this provision is included in current ATF appropriations, the Bureau cannot act upon applications for relief from Federal firearms disabilities submitted by individuals.
Why wouldn’t you support this? It acknowledges a problem and attempts to remedy it. So what’s the freaking issue?
4) Universal Background Checks ARE NOT Gun Registration, Gun Registration IS Gun Registration.
Let me say that again.
Universal Background Checks ARE NOT Gun Registration. Gun Registration IS Gun Registration.
I would disallow recording of serial numbers, and descriptions of guns. That should be enough to satisfy a no registration position. What you advocate is no background checks.
Per your scenario, Luther wants to buy a gun from Jethro. Luther goes through the Mandatory Universal Background Check that proves he bought a gun from Jethro. It proves that Luther is legally able to own the gun he wants to buy from Jethro, and that Luther isn’t a convicted felon or deemed mentally defective by the legal system. A few years later, Luther goes “off the reservation” and decides someone has got to die. Luther decides to use the gun he purchased from Jethro to commit the crime. In their investigation, the police match the ballistics of the bullets to said gun. The police come to Jethro, and say “Jethro, you sold Luther this gun.” Jethro says, yes I did, and you guys said it was okay at the time because I ran my background check like the law says I should. GUESS WHAT? Luther goes to jail for murder, and Jethro gets to sit at home with his family because HE DID NOTHING WRONG and can prove it.
5) Your arguments are moot.
When you look at the overall picture based on my proposal, guess what, YOU COME OUT AHEAD! Everyone gets something of what they want.
Gun guys get:
Any type of gun they want to own. Unlike the truly idiototic gun control fruit loops (Yes you Ms. Feinstein), I’m not scared of semi-auto rifles that are based off of the AR-15 or AK-47 design. 1 trigger pull equals 1 bullet fired.
To own brand new fully automatic weapons with a little bit of extra training for safety sake. I don’t care if it was made before or after 1986.
You get to carry concealed from coast to coast. All states would be shall issue, not may issue. Conceal carry on government property is still subject to state control. Let the people decide where they think it is appropriate to restrict or allow conceal carry. Hopefully we can agree that there are at least a few places where a weapon is just not appropriate.
The moral high ground of saying we gave you a safer system.
Gun Saftey guys get:
The mentally ill kept away from guns….at least more so than they are now.
The assurance (regardless of how true or false that is) that guns are harder for criminals to get because the obvious holes in the system are now filled.
I acknowledge that no system is perfect and responsible gun owners should want to fix the obvious problems in the current system. At the very least, by working on the changes that liberals insist on, you don’t have the decisions made for you. The next time they come around trying to make an issue of it, you can tell them to stuff it because you gave them some of what they wanted last time.
The problem with “asking for concessions” is that we’ve already conceded away 95% of our delicious 2nd Amendment Cake, and the anti-gun left keeps coming back for more.
But you know what? Here’s a concession. I would support a well-written universal background check bill IF that bill also included the following: Nationwide concealed carry reciprocity and the removal of suppressors, SBRs, and SBS from the NFA registry. That’s an actual compromise. What you people call “compromise” is actually just having more of our cake taken away.
Caleb, one question, why those things in particular? Why suppresors, SBS & SBRs?
Because they’re on the NFA list for completely arbitrary reasons which have nothing to do with their actual use or implementation.
Hell, some European countries actually require the use of suppressors for recreational shooting and sell them over the counter in hardware stores.
WELL DONE liberalgunnut *slow claps* you read my.comment but none of it sunk in you read but didn’t understand.
I Did not use liberal as an insult I just objected to the way the modern Democrat.party has perverted the word to encompass their agenda in order to.make.them.sound reasonable and portray any opposition as unenlightened.
1. How is respecting rights but demanding training going to work. If you demand extra training for a scary type of gun in.response I want a mandatory civics test before people get a voting permit. A vote.is a fuck ton more dangerous than an m16. Plus of course any state set training could be and is in many cases used as a bar to access. Il is a great example.the length of the course plus the limited number of instructors due to the rules in place mean it.is very difficult to actually do. (The state police have to approve instructors approve.the location and so.can.arbitrarily bar people and restrict access) if I earn 17000$ a year and a ccp is going. To cost me 1000 dollars total then I can’t justify itm ( easily done based on IL’s response to being forced into a shall.issue law by the courts so trying to.make it difficult and a burden to discourage take up, 250-400$ for a 20+ hour class, 100-300 for a hotel as the limited number of instructors mean I may have to travel to an urban area. 20-50 for food and drink, 50-100 for ammunition depend ing on the round count required for the competency plus practice to achieve that, 20-50 range fees to hit the competency, 50 for my fingerprints. 200+ application cost 100 for gas too and from course and home and the gov entity plus depending on the timing childcare costs and lost wages could also be an issue)
How will mandatory training be moderated so it isn’t used as a weapon. That crook bloomberg who spends his time throwing money around to anti gun candidates whilst standing behind armed guards could easily ensure NYC or anywhere else he buys control of had a Mandatory training that Col Cooper couldn’t have passed by setting it at 30 hour class of learning laws and theory,testing on both plus competency handling and maintaining a weapon plus discuss on of shoot no shoot scenario’s and then setting a practical requiring something ridiculous like 50 rounds at 25m with a 1″ group offhand. 50 rounds at 25 1″ group strong hand plus scoring 30 hits on targets between 5 and 30 metres on a pop up range with a mix of shoot/no shoot targets and a simunitions test proving you can draw and fire under stress without hitting bystanders. (Unlike NYPD :D) with an approved instructor, which would mean noone in NYC would carry because you couldn’t run a course like.that in the city because there isn’t the range capable of it and it would cost well.in the 2000 dollar range. Or the applicant must attend a training course from a state police instructor and they offer say 2 classes a year with 20 places on each class. Under your mandatory training that is state set idea you could see anything from walk in fire 6 rounds at 15 yards to the above hellish scenarios. There are so many
Ways to make mandatory training a barrier.
He’ll states could quite.legally do what the fed does for medical mj, you can apply for a permit and pay the tax/permit.fee and be issued a permit to puff but the fed are just not app extinguishers payment in anyway but cheque and not cashing the checks. All legal because training is availible but a block
The courts ruled it was illegal to do for voting as it had a disproportionate affect on the poor a group.in which minority are over represented, the same reason people argue voter id laws are unconstitutional so I would argue that the idea of mandatory training.is still.a barrier.
2. I don’t have any common ground with people Who argue that I have to give up rights for the ‘general welfare’ because that means that I share the view that someone should have rights taken from them ‘just in case’. Just because I agree there are issues with the mental health system it does not.mean we share common ground. We have come to the same conclusion but for VERY different reasons.
There is a large sentence for KNOWINGLY selling to a Felon and a similar.sentence for felons trying.to buy a Firearm but and I will use small words and capitals here.
THE LAW IS NOT BEING USED!!! Go ask your local FFL how many times he has been in the situation where someone fails the background check because of a DV conviction and/or a felony. Ask him how often reporting it actually.results in an arrest. This is a situation where he/she/other can Hand the federal government Name D.O.B SSN and verified address. If the.laws were being enforced it would simply be a matter.of.driving.round and lifting the scrote. Nice and simple but it is hardly ever done.
When I sold a pistol privately I asked for a state ID and for the buyer to show me a CHP/CWP I would also have accepted being shown a stamp for a title 2 weapon. All of these require.the person to have passed a background check (specifically the NICS check that OKs someone for firearm purchase from an ffl) if the buyer couldn’t give one of these or something equivilent (e.g if they had an FOID for entering IL with firearms or a Warrent card (dunno what the us term is I grew up.in the UK it’s basically a coppers proof he is a copper) )
they still wanted the weapon I would ask them to either perform a check that I would pay for at my lgs or ask them.if they had an ffl who would verify they can pass a check (I google the ffl to.check the number myself and call ask ‘is Joe sixpack’ a regular buyer.from you guys?) Most sellers I have seen on the gun boards or gunbroker ask for a CWP/CHP me I offer a few options but every sale I have done or seen has had some verification done. The only difference is there is no paper record.
As trite as it sounds proof for UBC’s equalling registration is a plot.point in Red Dawn. ‘Go to the sporting goods stores and obtain form 4473 from their files’ during investigation of the shooting of Skyla Jade Whitaker, a few years back the local police sent letters to owners of guns in the right caliber and make asking them to submit their gun to ballistics testing. They could do this because they went through the background check forms.
If I am doing something with no affect on any other person then my rights are the only thing that matters. Your opinions have fuck all to do with whether I should be allowed to do something.
My ability to carry a Firearm legally doesn’t affect your rights at all. You.do.not have a right to ‘feel safe’ as so.many argue when calling for the ban or restriction of carry.
When discussing rights to possess an item, simple possession cannot impact others. Use of the item can but illegal malum in se uses are already illegal. So my right to unreasonable search and seizure is absolute however if I do something illegal then a warrent does not infringe my rights.
As for full auto carrying the death penalty for anything not adjudicated as selfdefence..
no just no. So if I have a weapon that has for.whatever reason a defect similar to the defect of my airsoft 1911 that fires when.a magazine is inserted. (Something wrong with the sear I think, it uses a real 1911 style trigger system so any 1911 buff who can offer a suggestion for fix please do!!!)
So if I put a magazine in on a hot range and it fires as someone else breaks the range rules and Crosses in front of my bench in a tragic accident I am strapped down in old sparky.
Or of a Racially biased DOJ pressure the state to try me for a self.defense shooting I have previously been no billed for. A shooting where the pressand certain groups with an agenda have pilloried and slandered Me, edited 911 calls to make me appear a bigot, lied about the events which took place therefore influencing the jury.A shooting where the federal.government is leaning on the AG who is leaning on the judge to throw me to the baying wolves ends in my death…
Plus that would end with bizarre things if I am robbed and shoot one of the three crooks with a glock 18 and the others are caught. The other two then would be put to death because their felony murder conviction would trigger the penalty.
Making things that are illegal more illegal doesn’t help.
The reforms.you suggest to.the mental health system are full of issues most have already been raised. However you didn’t address my major.point.which was that in the push to recognise the rights that you and others who espouse your beliefs claim exist are a definite part of the reasonthat mass shootings are on the rise. The general welfare, the feeling empowered, the portrayal of the object as the issues all part of the reasons behind the ideology which advocates for the majority.of mental.health cases to be treated with a community practice. A social model of mental health meaning that segregation of people in secure units is discouraged, the individual not held as being responsible for heir actions and instead a fetish being blamed/held up as the cause. (Fetish in the sense of a talisman object as opposed to its sexual meaning) violent video games, the gun, the knife or the condition. rather than the focus on the killer.
The community.approach which relies.on using medication that people build a tolerance to, medication without oversight. And not taking into account or.monitoring behaviour. The Va tech shooter.who was being flagged for violent writing and his speech should have been taken in for analysis but due to the reluctance.in the system to hold.people he wasn’t. The shooter of Gabby GiffoRd had his carers begging for him.to be taken in by force of government.
Hell Walt Whitman is an amazing example he went voluntarily to a psychiatrist and begged to be refered, confessed to violent thoughts and plans, being taken in with an involuntary hold, being taken to a secure unit would have saved pepole. But due to the views of his psychiatrist that medicating and leaving him.in society was better than the ‘asylums’ 17 people died.
You can write rules about mandatory reporting making accessing help.hard. and carry very negative.consequences especially. If there is no comeback on those who use their own biases to strip people of righrs. (Those who believe desiring to own a weapon is an indication of a mental problem for example) then people who need help who aren’t a danger to themselves or others won’t go.
Mandatory reporting won’t change hinge if there isn’t a mental.health system in place that is PREPARED to actually hold.people by force of law.
I was stabbed by someone who was medicated bipolar tendencies and paranoid delusions. She believed her boyfriend had left her 6 months before because I had being posing his mind against her because I hated her. (In fact it was because she would flip.out and attack him demanding to know who he had been flirting with and flipping out if he was seen by anyone she knew talking to a girl) she tapped me on the shoulder and I turned round into.a knife attack. She ran from the bar and then spent 3.weeks stalking.my friend (he moved and had to take a detour home.from work.or out with friends, had to park away from the house new girlfriend car was vandalised his room at his parents was broken into and she stole.underwear from.his washing line) she was only.taken into custody and a hospital when he walked into his house(that she didn’t have the address for anywhere) one day to find she had broken in and tied herself naked tohis bed waiting for him. She refused to believe he had a new girlfriend had been glueing cutouts of her over photos of him and his new girlfriend when he asked her to.leave she undid her scarf and.attacked him before. Phoning the police and screaming he was smacking her ‘his girlfriend’ around.
She could easily have been waiting.for him.with a weapon having killed.his girlfriend, had already committed. Violent acts and had a record of stalking and other crimes and yet wasn’t taken in.
Plus of.course criminals by there nature don’t care about the law, the gangs arms.dealer won’t check for felonies and they will.kill people regardless. In places where.they can’t import illegally.or steal weapons they will make them.
The only people who will.obey laws are people who aren’t going to commit a crime demonising the weapon won’t solve crimes.. background checks are for the. Most part a feel.good thing rather than.a thing that stops criminal access to weapons.
At the heart of the Liberal/Conservative divide is an understanding of human nature.
Conservatives (and a lot of Libertarians) see human nature as not changing a whole lot. People act and do today in very similar ways that they acted and did 1,000 years go. Technology may have changed, allowing folks to do things faster and better, but human motivations and desires and choices don’t change a whole lot.
That means we also see and acknowledge the fact that some people will do bad things, often for seemingly nonsensical reasons, or no reasons at all.
Liberals, on the other hand, seem to believe in the infinite malleability of human nature. Liberals (at least the hard core ones) seem to really believe that if we just pass ONE MORE law and enact ONE MORE regulation, it will somehow fundamentally change human nature.
Elliot Rodger, the spoiled psychopath who shot folks and also stabbed three others to death comes to mind.
For years, Liberals screamed about mandatory background checks and waiting periods.
Elliot Rodgers underwent 3 California state background checks, and spent a total of 30 days waiting to get his get his guns. Laws didn’t affect anything.
Such laws don’t do anything but put burdens on me, for no reason, and no net gain at all.
There was no “Solution” to Elliot Rodgers except for somebody to use guns to shoot him once he started his rampage. Or the crazy head chopper at the Oklahoma food processing plant a couple of days ago? No “Solution” to that except for the clear-headed COO of the company who popped him to stop him.
Y’all really do believe your crazy ideas will “solve” stuff. But they don’t. Even in your example about, trying to tell a different story about Luther and Jethro, the laws you propose don’t solve anything, because even in your story, Luther still kills somebody. You apparently believe, based on your version of the Luther and Jethro story, that adding more paperwork to a murder investigation is somehow a good thing and proof of how moral and awesome your ideas are.
Luther still kills somebody in your story. Nothing could have stopped Luther from killing except maybe the person he killed being armed, and shooting him instead.
Well then by that logic, why should we have any laws at all? That is also one of the primary & sorriest excuses I hear from the 2A crowd all the time. By that logic why did our forefathers bother to write a frickin Constitution or the Bill of Rights in the first place?
Why have a legal Blood Alcohol Level and severe penalties for drunk driving either? It doesn’t stop drunk driving. Except wait, it does, because the rate of drunk driving fatalities and incidents have dropped since those laws were instituted in the 80’s.
So sorry, public safety trumps a little inconvenience for you……Wait, NO I’M NOT SORRY. Try again with a better argument.
I know you’re not sorry.
Which is why we ultimately do not care what you say or think.
I hope you have a good Liberal cry the day after election day this November.
Short term gains do no good when your party is alienating every major growing demographic 8n the country. Beyond that, the tea bag candidates you keep electing seem intent on seeing who can win the race to the bottom of stupid. Sorry to tell you but crusty old white men who are whining because they’re a dying demographic don’t stand a chance over the long haul.
What’s even more funny is when Liberal yell about the “Bill of Rights” as an example of crazy right-wingers not wanting any laws at all.
Because the Bill of Rights sole purpose is declaring what Government CANNOT do, and what LIMITS there are on Government power.
Liberals want no limits on Government power, because increased law and regulation is the solution.
Or something.
My last response at least until November,
Thank you, LiberalGunNut for proving my initial point about Liberals and guns.
Y’all call us unreasonable and ignorant and paranoid.
You demand we “have a conversation,” but the only kind of “conversation” y’all want to have is one in which you say the following.
“So sorry, public safety trumps a little inconvenience for you……Wait, NO I’M NOT SORRY.”
Once again, y’all are always right and we are always wrong, and “having a conversation” means you get to list which rights and freedoms and liberties we must surrender to appease you…..this time
We’ve been surrendering rights and freedoms and liberties since the NFA Act of 1934.
We’re not interested in surrendering any more.
But thanks again for proving my point about liberals and “conversations” about guns.
Ànd when the argument moves to uncomfortable Teri tory loke restrictions on power ànd the legalities he starts with insults.
Here’s a question why is it that when booze was banned it required a full constitutional ammendment but when machine guns were effectively banned (ànd it is a ban on civilian ownership because basically eventually they will break or wear out or get so expensive they are unaffordable. Plus if all of us want one only a finite Humber of us can have one) just required that arse hole Rangel to make an illegal decision in the Senate (illegal by senate rules though unchallengeable. In the courts as the Senate sets it’s own rules according to.the supremes).
Secondly if the 2nd ammendment applies to.the states then surely the people couldn’t bar carry in places because.they are equally bound by the 2nd ànd as the courts have decided.the ‘well you can own one but can’t carry one’ defence doesn’t work that blocks any state ban on cc surely.
As for your racial slur Mr liberal I don’t appreciate it. Not all conservatives are white or old ànd well.dons for your mature throwing around of derogatory homophobic remarks in order to smear those who subscribe to the small government ethos of the tea party movement.
I am not white anglo saxon nor am I old ànd as for the other question gender identity is complicated yet I agreewith the tea party ethos. As Thatcher said ‘the problem with liberalism is eventually you run out of other people’s money’ ànd to be honest that is coming soon. Which means the gov needs to slim down ànd rethink things.
Dear Cynic,
I see you’ve mastered the art of sarcasm, if not the arts of effective debate or compromise. So let me address you point by agonizing point.
How is respecting rights but demanding training going to work if you demand extra training for a scary type of gun in.response?
The simple answer is that no right is absolute, if you pretend it is, you will ultimately lose the argument. This is a principle that the Supreme Court has upheld numerous times. So a little extra training is not unreasonable and I will tell you why. The 2A crowd is fond of pointing out that the gun control crowd doesn’t know how to make the distinction between a semi-automatic sporting rifle, and assault rifles or machine guns. Well guess what, I DO. You’re right, a gun that can spew out 800 rounds a minute IS scary. But I’m sure that if I handed an untrained 7 year old a loaded, fully automatic Glock 18 you’d be comfortable standing in the same room with them while they waved it around. In fact, I believe a highly publicized incident of just that nature happened at an outdoor range in Nevada. As a result, the instructor is dead and a little girl has to live with the fact that she is responsible for the death of someone. So yes a minimum expectation of training is not out of line.
You say “I want a mandatory civics test before people get a voting permit.” First of all it’s illegal per the 2nd section of the 14th amendment. Second, this is not a voting rights forum, when this turns into a one, that is an entirely reasonable topic for debate. We’re not talking about voting rights and I will not be drawn off on that tangent.
Your IL example is interesting, I see your concerns, and they are valid. I would say in return that the details can and should be worked out by the politicians. You spend a lot of time going on about a worst case scenario regarding IL CCW and how it would relate to worst case for an automatic weapons permit. So let me address that scenario.
Your Problem with Permitting
First let me say I find it disingenuous that you see no problem for going through training and permitting for a CCW permit but have a problem doing the same to qualify to own a new automatic weapon. I am making some guesses or assumptions here, if any of them are wrong, get over it, I don’t know you and don’t want to know you. I’m guessing you have your CCW, live in a state other than IL and are using IL as a worst case scenario. If not well, tough luck, you can still get your CCW there which is better than people in NY or CA can do. If you do not have a CCW why are you even talking about it, you haven’t gone to the trouble of going through the process, so it obviously can’t mean that much to you?
Regardless of all of this, IL is definitely an outlier in the conceal carry game, and as you outline I will acknowledge it is somewhat cost prohibitive. None the less, it is there, Illinois IS now a Shall Issue state. I know CCW is relatively simple to get in just about any other Shall Issue state where the training and cost requirements are both quite minimal. I know for a fact that there are states that have literally issued CCW permits to blind men who were able to meet the permit requirements. So your worst case scenario is exactly that, worst case, and I could counter that there will be plenty of states that would make the permitting process for automatic as minimal as it is for CCW. So I will say to conservatives the same thing they say to me about people who can’t find a good paying job in their state. If you don’t like your state’s gun laws, move to another state that agrees with your sensibilities if it means that much to you.
Your Problem with Cost
As to the cost of the CCW course in IL, to prove it’s an outlier, let’s look at the cost for a CCW course in neighboring Shall Issue state KY. The cost and requirements for the CCW class is as follows per http://www.defensivehandguntraining.com:
Course Requirements and Cost:
• Residency in the State of Kentucky
• 6 Hours of Classroom Training.
• 2 Hours Range Training.
• Cost is $85 due prior to the day of the course, payable by cash or money order.
• You will need 50 rounds of factory ammunition for this course – no reloads.
Course Contents:
• Handgun Nomenclature and Function
• Handgun Ammunition
• Fundamentals of Shooting
• Kentucky Laws and Statutes
• Selecting a Handgun
• Firearm Safety
• Methods of Concealed Carry
• Use of Deadly Force
• Cleaning your Handgun
• Practical Shooting Qualification Test
• Situational Awareness *
• Physiological Effects of Being Attacked *
• Review of Ohio CCW Laws *
• Ethical Responsibility for Concealed Carry *
• Responding to a Violent Confrontation *
• Aftermath of a Self-Defense Shooting *
• Introduction to Basic Handgun Tactics *
• …and much more.
So for your IL worst case scenario, I’ve shown you another, which by most measures is affordable and reasonable even on a $17,000 a year budget. Bottom line, for every worst case scenario you can show me I can show you one that is closer to reality in the majority of states that are Shall Issue. It is reasonable to assume by extension that there would be similar variability from state to state on fully automatic weapons permitting requirements if you could convince the federal government to open the the category back up.
Bottom line, guns are an expensive obsession and automatic weapons even more so. Ammo alone can price people out of the regular market quick, automatic weapons by their nature chew through rounds at prodigious rates. We both know that if you want to be proficient with your chosen weapon you have to practice. If you don’t practice your gun might as well be a nice wall decoration. Being a good shot takes lots of practice and lots of ammo.
All of that said, a decent (I didn’t say nice or good, but a decent – meaning basic and serviceable) weapons are not cheap. In 2012 Guns and Ammo had an article about 8 affordable CCW guns the prices ranged between $325 – $399 for guns made by Bersa, Ruger, & Smith & Wesson. (Here’s the article for reference http://www.gunsandammo.com/galleries/8-quality-carry-guns-for-under-400/) A cheap AK-47 or AR-15 is currently between $450 – $600 depending on where you shop. So you tell me, what is someone making $17,000 a year doing getting into automatic weapons? Do you honestly think they’ll be looking at a full auto M4 or Glock 18 for self-defense or hobby shooting? The bottom line in my proposal is that for a relatively minimal requirement, much of the NFA is negated and you get more than you had.
Legislative Retribution
Beyond the previous 2 arguments, assuming any of this revisionist legislation could be passed, don’t tell me that the Congressional/Senate Republicans don’t have enough clout to get language inserted that would allow them to watch out for gun owner interests. Come on, these are the same people that kept a Director out of the ATF for 7 years because they don’t like who is in the White House. And don’t whine about Harry Reid changing the rules of the Senate. The statistics show that this congress has been the least productive of any in history, much of it caused by Republican obstructionism and legislative grand standing. Harry Reid did what he had to do to get federal appointments voted on, republicans have done the same in the past. It was a direct reaction to Republican filibusters on Obama appointments. It will come to haunt Democrats when they become the minority, if not in January, then at some point. Bottom line, if and when the legislative process ever starts to work properly again, there will be give and take in the legislation. Nobody will get everything of what they want, that’s the way good legislation works. So even if Democrats could manage insanely stringent requirements on automatic weapons after opening up their availability by revising the NFA, and institute universal Shall Issue CCW requirements, Republicans and the NRA would push back to get a compromise to make sure their lobby gets something out of the deal. Bottom line is that for every hellish scenario you can imagine, I can imagine a realistic one that is more reasonable. Quit whining and pretending like the Democrats and the anti-gun lobby rule the world. The NRA has run the table on limiting gun control for a long time and has plenty of clout.
No Common Ground
You have no common ground with people who argue that “I have to give up rights for the ‘general welfare’ because that means that I share the view that someone should have rights taken from them ‘just in case’.” Is it because you believe that your right to own a firearm is absolute? Is it because what you want trumps what the majority of the American population wants? Do you feel that you don’t owe anything to the society that makes your existence possible? Or is it because your just scared enough that gun control advocates can make a legitimate argument that there are problems that should be addressed? Could it be that if you actually acknowledged some of the real problems, you’d have to come up with better solutions? I see someone who tries to poke holes in good proposals made to balance the rights of everyone, but has few real ideas of their own. The fact that you’re not very good at poking those holes is a whole other matter.
“Just because I agree there are issues with the mental health system it does not.mean we share common ground. We have come to the same conclusion but for VERY different reasons.”
If someone is convinced of their own righteousness, then they certainly won’t be convinced to have a rational discussion. If that’s your attitude, GO HOME. If you want some actual give and take, (I have at least acknowledged 2A concerns , and I have also added some pretty nice carrots) I’ll be glad to talk with you.
THE LAW IS NOT BEING USED, just ask your local FFL!!!
Beyond the fact that you’re just acting like a 3 year old by presuming I can’t read, I’ll do you one better, let’s go to the source of the stats. According to a DOJ Bureau of Justice Statistics PDF located at http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/bcft10st.pdf). In 2010 there were 10.4 Million background checks run. Of that there were approximately 153,000 denied, of those denials 62,000 were for felonies, and 91,000 were for other reasons. Of all of those denials 76,142 were referred to the ATF by the FBI for investigation. Out of all of those, 1,520 led to arrests. So, yes the law is being used to some measure. With lots of people who shouldn’t have firearms being denied, a whole bunch more of that group being investigated, and some more of them actually going to jail for it. In addition in 2010 there were 11,421 people charged with firearms crimes, of those 9,136 people were convicted of those firearms crimes(source http://www.justice.gov/usao/reading_room/reports/asr2010/10statrpt.pdf). Overall, I wonder about something though, of those 153,000 denied through their FFL inquiry how many went out and bought a gun on the private market? I guess we’ll never know because they got their gun and never bothered to tell anyone about it?
You check for proper credentials when you sell a gun
CLAP! CLAP! CLAP! Good for you. You’re a responsible person, you deserve a pat on the back! I’m so proud of you. How about all the people who don’t give a crap about who they sell too? For the same reasons people want to conceal carry (which I do, and I support) I don’t trust the other guy and want a way to hold him accountable.
They’re coming for our guns!
Here’s a fact for you. Combined, the military and law enforcement possess 4 million handguns and rifles. There are approximately 800,000 Local, State, & Federal Law enforcement officers in the U.S. The to U.S. Military has approximately 1.4 million active duty and 851,000 reserve personnel that’s 3.05 million people to do what you’re proposing would happen on a door to door basis.
There are roughly 80 million gun owners in America, combined we possess by some estimates 310 million guns. There are more of us than them and we have more weapons. If they’re really coming for you personally, the only advantage they have is that they can bring bigger guns to the fight. At the end of the day if they want you dead, you’ll be dead. In the longer term America becomes another Iraq or Afghanistan if they try to enforce the scenario you propose and you and I both know it. So I see your Red Dawn plot point and raise you reality.
It’s ALL about you isn’t it?
If I am doing something with no effect on any other person then my rights are the only thing that matters.” That’s the thing, it’s not all about you. Unless you live on a desert island, what you do DOES affect other people. Try going through a single day where what you do doesn’t affect someone else somehow. If you can do it, GREAT! For people who operate in reality, it’s always going to be about achieving a balance between the rights of the individual with the rights of everyone else. Apparently though YOU are too stupid, ignorant, or selfish to realize this.
You.do.not have a right to ‘feel safe’
Again you’re wrong, fundamentally most of the conceal carry argument is all about the “right to feel safe”. I know you don’t like it, but yes it does exist as a right. If it is not enumerated, it is strongly implied in the Constitution and Declaration of Independence. I presume you conceal carry to feel safe? I don’t know you from Adam, but based on your posts I could easily be led to believe you’re a violent, frothing at the mouth, trigger happy, imbecile. Fortunately, there’s a mechanism that satisfies both our concerns. It’s called the concealed carry law. It allows you to carry a weapon concealed. If I know you possess a CCW Permit, it assures me you’ve met some kind of minimal requirements (however dubious they may be). I know you’re not a criminal (or at least one who has paid their dues and convinced the authorities to have their rights restored), that you have a minimum of training to know how to operate your weapon safely, and that you know the consequences of your actions should you choose to act stupidly.
I don’t know 99.9% of the other concealed carry firearm owners in the U.S., but I do have those small assurances when I meet them. MOST of them are individuals of good conscience. However, there are also a lot of stupid, hot headed individuals out there. Good concealed carry laws filter some of the stupid people out. So would a good Universal Background Check law. What we currently have is a crappy background check system that has A LOT of loopholes.
Concerning banning things
In this whole conversation, when have I ever proposed banning anything? I may be a liberal, but if you go back and bother to read my prior posts, insulting though some may be, I’ve only ever talked of expanding the types of weapons available, and making Conceeal Carry as a Shall Issue law for all 50 states. You apparently confuse me for some other liberal you know.
Posession vs. Use
You say simple possession cannot impact others? Tell me, why are you even confounded by this? Since you apparently lack a basic understanding I’ll take the time to explain. Tell me how is that possession and use are not intimately related? If I’m a convicted felon and possess a firearm, am I not violating the law, even if I don’t use it? If I possess something, the potential is ALWAYS there for me to use it. That is why possession and use while separate charges in the eyes of the law are closely related. Society has determined certain people are not allowed to have certain items for good reasons, like convicted criminals having firearms. I would hope I don’t have to enumerate the reasons for you, needless to say the majority of people consider it a BAD combination. Having said all that, there are other things that have been prohibited for capricious reasons, but that is another discussion.
Whether you want to acknowledge it or not, the fact remains that NO right is absolute. Need proof? Try refusing a breathalyzer test next time the cops pull you over for suspected drunk driving. You HAVE the right to refuse, but you automatically forfeit your license if you do. It is the law in all 50 states. The Supreme Court has upheld this exact scenario, by saying that drunk driving poses a severe threat to the safety of society. This out weighs your right to privacy, and/or unreasonable search and seizure. No warrant required, no right is absolute, all rights are subject to conditions.
Regarding your M-1911 scenario
The short answer is no, unless you know of someone who makes a fully auto 1911. The penalty in question is for killings using fully automatic weapons only. But just for the sake of argument, let’s say your scenario could happen. My first question is what are you doing knowingly brining a defective weapon to a live fire practice session? What kind of dumbass knowingly brings a defective weapon to a fucking firing range where others are operating? Certainly not a responsible one! Take it to a gunsmith and make sure it is properly repaired and serviced, then fire the damn weapon. You have lost credibility right there. Beyond that, YOU are responsible for the safe operation of your firearm always, no exceptions! It’s not the guy walking on the range who can kill someone. YOU can injure or kill him, it is you holding the gun, it is you pointing the weapon. His walking across the range cannot hurt you. Frankly if a death did occur because of your negligence, yes you should be tried for involuntary manslaughter at the very least. By knowingly brining a defective firearm to a range, you obviously don’t know how to operate it in a safe manner. So go home and play with your airsoft guns until you can learn to be a responsible adult.
Great power requires great responsibility and wielding a fully automatic firearm gives you a great amount of power. That was the point of the penalty.
Regarding a racially biased justice system and press?
I have no fix for that, other than hire a good attorney and if you can afford it, a good PR firm, oh and keeping your mouth shut is always a good idea in those circumstances. I’m not here to fix all the problems of the world.
Making things that are illegal more illegal doesn’t help.
Short answer to that is that I’m not, I’m proposing opening up things that are currently illegal or restricted in some places to responsible ownership through a valid permitting process. I’ve never said anything about taking away anyone’s weapons.
Your point about rights/consequenses.
Not sure I fully understand all of what you want me to address, but I will acknowledge that my proposal is an outline more than a detailed plan and do my best to address it as I understand your issues. I’ve tried to address the major problems as I see them. Chiefly those being a background check system with too many holes in it. You solve that by requiring every firearms transaction to go through the NICS system, no exceptions. You tighten up the NICS system by tightening up the lax and fragmented mental health reporting standards in this country. I will admit that done wrong, there are many ways individual rights to be violated.
Having said all that, my point is that our mental health system is screwed up to begin with, so lets start by fixing that system or at least the more important parts. I would say that almost by definition, you have to be crazy to want to harm masses of unarmed civillians in the first place. I haven’t seen one mass shooting in the last 20 years where the perpetrator seemed to be in his right mind. I also know that I’m not a mental health professional, so I don’t have all the answers. I do know that there are functioning individuals in our society with mental illnesses who are no threat to themselves or anyone else when they are undergoing proper treatment. I leave the judgement of who’s a threat to society and who is not to a combination of mental health professionals and judges in that case.
As to the mentally ill being responsible for their actions, that has to be adjudicated on a case by case basis. Sometimes they do know exactly what they’re doing, others they don’t. Depends on the situation and actions in question, not to mention the mental state of the individual. Sometimes it’s clear someone is a crazy MF, others not so much.
I agree, the VA tech and Gabby Giffords shootings were both what amounted to a criminal malfunction of the system. Which is why it needs to be tightened up. As to Walt Whitman, he died March 26, 1892 of pneumonia and didn’t and couldn’t hurt a damn person upon his death. If you’re referring to Charles S. Whitman, yeah he was a crazy MF, no questions asked.
Let’s try not to defame great American poets in our discussions please.
As to a desire to own a weapon being enough to commit someone or deny them their 2A rights. There’s a real simple solution, write multiple criteria for such an action being taken into the into the legislation. Just to be clear, having the desire to go out and buy a weapon or weapons and ammunition is not enough for a liberal Psychiatrist to take action. However, stating that you want to buy guns and ammo, then go to Washington D.C. hop the fence of the White House, and start opening fire, AND you bought the plane ticket to D.C. last night and have been saving for your gun. Yeah, that should qualify.
We both agree that individuals with a clear pattern of recent violent/intimidating behavior should be confined. Hell, right now we’re using our prisons for mental health facilities. Which is part of the problem.
Saying criminals don’t care about the law is just a copout for not dealing with the real problems. Having worked in the criminal justice system myself, I can say with confidence that the vast majority of criminals are dumbasses, they don’t think their plans fully through, and often times aren’t nearly as smart as they think they are. Which is why you have to have good laws in place, so that when they do screw up (and they do plenty of dumb things) you have something you can catch them with, and then make the consequences stick afterwards. You’re not gonna get all the fish at once, but if you have a good net, you can get more than you would without a net to begin with.
As to your other recent post, let me say this. I find that most tea baggers aren’t nearly as smart as they think they are. I use that pejorative for them because in my experience, they elect dumb candidates, make crappy comments, and have more ideology than brains. They haven’t earned my respect, so I treat them that way. You’ve done the same to me, so there, we’re even.
As to why an amendment was passed banning booze and one has not been passed banning the ownership of machine guns. It’s simple, the 18th amendment banned all alcohol not for medicinal purposes, whereas the National Firearms Act of 1934 didn’t ban the ownership of machine guns outright, rather, it just taxed them out of reach of the average citizen initially. Furthermore the Firearms Owners Protection Act (Woefully misnamed) further restricted the manufacture and sale of weapons made after 1986. It doesn’t ban them outright, it just makes it horribly inconvenient to own and manufacture them, thus creating a de facto ban. I will say that the original NFA of 34 was a direct response to Mafia use of automatic firearms. So I’m not sure what your question proves other than you may know more about something than I do. In which case, I’m so proud of you. You’re a smart cynic….oh yes you are!
As to your comments on my choice insults, and I have up til now been fairly restrained in them. As to using the term “crusty old white guys” what can I say, I’m white, I’m definitely crusty, and I’m working on the old part. So what’s your point. In my experience, most tea baggers and republicans ARE crusty old white guys. They are the Republican Party’s demographic bread and butter. It’s a fact that the Republican party does far more to alienate growing demographics than to draw them in based on their stand on various issues, most of which aren’t appropriate or germane to the discussion here.
As for the small government ethos, I believe it’s just a libertarian Kock brothers red herring. If you have a smaller government you’re not guaranteed a better government if it’s run by a bunch of lobotomized boy scouts who don’t know their butt from a hole in the ground. That’s why I believe in better government.
Frankly, I don’t give a damn what demographic you fall into. Just make sure you can cite the correct freaking references and spell correctly for gods sake
.