General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsSausage making: what are you willing to concede in return for background checks?
I asked this yesterday in the context of quoting from a blog entry that was kind of distracting, so I want it as an OP.
If you ask the "gun" people at DU, most of us want universal background checks on gun sales. Most gun owners in the US seem to agree. That was never going to pass the House, but it's disappointing that it died in the Senate.
However, maybe it didn't have to. Gun rights are one of those issues that has very strong support in some areas that are overrepresented in Congress. This is a fact. Hating this will not make it otherwise (believe me; I've tried for decades).
What are you willing to put in a legislative package to get this to pass? Have you thought about what people who vote pro-gun rights want? Bluntly, have you even listened long enough to know? Do you know what the Hughes amendment is, and what you might be able to get in exchange for overturning it? How about Federal concealed carry, something Alan Grayson supports? Are there even polls out staying what we could get in exchange for that? Why not?
Do you want universal background checks enough to actually pass a bill with all the horse trading that would entail?
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)There should be nothing controversial about background checks as proposed. Heck legislation should have included background checks on inherited lethal weapons or gifts, sales to friends, etcml. Compromises had already been made.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)There should be a unicameral legislature where one person = one vote. There's not.
What are you, Hoyt, willing to concede to get universal background checks through Congress? Is there something the people opposed to it want that you're willing to offer? Have you ever asked?
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Sounds like you prefer a gutted bill that has Ted Nugent, Wayne LaPierre, Prez Keene, Grover Norquist, etc., shooting weapons into the air, while down bottles of Champaign, and god knows what else those right wing bigots ingest while fondling their guns.
I suspect the bill you and pro-gunners want is worse than the crappy legislation we have now.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Lots of people don't like that, so it probably can't be that, but that's something I put on the table.
In exchange, I'd want either a Federal Firearms Operator's License or, failing that, requiring every single firearms transfer to go through an FFL.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Last edited Mon Apr 22, 2013, 12:45 PM - Edit history (1)
We already conceded inherited weapons, transfers between "friends," and other NRA BS. I think that is too much.
A strong message needs to be sent to the gun community, that the majority of Americans expect them to actually act "responsible" with their lethal weapons.
DURHAM D
(32,595 posts)Recursion
(56,582 posts)Fixed; thank you.
DURHAM D
(32,595 posts)Recursion
(56,582 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)I don't want George Zimmerman packing a pistol on NYC subways, and I sure as hell don't want machine guns on demand to be the law.
Congress is incapable of doing anything positive about gun violence. So, doing nothing is better than them making the situation worse in states that do take the issue seriously. Let Florida be the OK corral if it wants to be, but let New York dissent from the gundamentalist culture of rural America by the same token.
kudzu22
(1,273 posts)If it's not ok to have a machine gun or carry a pistol despite having a background check, then why the push to have every gun owner pass one?
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Including cops and soldiers.
Background checks are one layer of protection by making it more difficult to keep the craziest and criminals from owning weapons.
But the basic math is more guns=more gun deaths.
Compare the US to Europe or Japan or Australia or Canada in that regard.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Though I understand there are some controversies about how that count is made. Norway's is roughly the same too. Brazil's is much lower.
That said, yes, to the first order fewer firearms would obviously mean fewer firearms deaths.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Something that the RKBA crowd seems to equate with Nazi Germany.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)They dropped the registry last year, because it cost much more money than they hoped and compliance was abysmally low. I suppose we'll have to wait and see what that ends up doing.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Only hunting weapons are exempt from the registration requirements now.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)This makes a lot of sense, since handguns are basically the only guns that are actually killing people in any numbers.
For that matter, at least to me, there's a much weaker Constitutional argument for handgun ownership than for rifle ownership. Several states have handgun registries; maybe we could tie DoJ money to doing that? I don't know.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)But, if a more restrictions on handguns for fewer restrictions on rifles deal were possible, it would have been made a long time ago.
Honestly, the only deal that could be cut would be a tax credit to gun makers in order to buy the NRA's silence.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Though I also think DU overstates the amount of money the NRA actually gets from manufacturers (problem #2: the NRA and the NRA-ILA are two different things).
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Majority comes from the corporate sector, e.g. the manufacturers.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)So there are actually three entities: the NRA, the NRA Foundation, and the NRA ILA (this is pretty much standard K street stuff; most National Organizations of Whatever also have a Foundation and a PAC). All three raise their money separately. The "less than half" bit only comes if you count gun buyers' choosing to donate a dollar at the time of sale (or round up their sale to the next dollar) as coming from the gunmaker rather than the buyer, which is dubious to me.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)And the handgun ownership rate is lower still.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)We know it was bad, but estimates range from 0.4 guns per person (much, much lower than us) to about 0.7 guns per person (within the margin of error of us).
But, yes, they have a much lower handgun ownership rate than we do. I wish ours were much, much lower than it is.
bemildred
(90,061 posts)el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)majority of Gun Owners. Pretend support for background checks is just that - pretend. The truth is that Gun Owners don't trust the Government (perhaps with good reason) and therefore assume that every attempt to pass even the mildest form of gun control is a step towards confiscation of their guns. This bill was pretty mild; there were some mental health concerns, but in general it was just codifying and strengthening a program that already exists. And, of course it failed - the NRA got its way.
Bryant
Recursion
(56,582 posts)You may be right that nothing we can offer would get a package passed. And actually with this Congress that might not surprise me. But what are you willing to offer in the first place? If it's an academic exercise (since nothing would pass Congress) then what's the harm in going there?
And if the answer is "nothing", how badly do we really want background checks, then?
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)Are there guns, or bullets or magazines they don't have access now that we should offer up?
Bryant
Recursion
(56,582 posts)el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)"If you would just listen to us we could come up with a solution."
"OK we want some form of gun control to keep guns out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them. What do you want?"
"We want no new forms of gun control, and a roll back on those forms we do have."
"We disagree then?"
"Sounds like it."
"so we'll just try and talk the American people into what we want and you try and talk them into what you want."
"Yes, but that wouldn't be necessary if you would just listen to us so we could come up with a solution."
Bryant
edhopper
(33,206 posts)90% of Americans should keep compromising with the 10%?
Recursion
(56,582 posts)If you want this to be a culture war issue a la abortion restriction for Republicans, then no, don't compromise.
edhopper
(33,206 posts)the background check was already a compromise.
No ban on assault weapons, no restriction on clip size, no tracking of illegal weapons, no database on gun sales, no restrictions on number of guns bought or owned.
Background checks were to only thing we could hope for, and they allowed that to be stopped.
What more is there to give up?
Recursion
(56,582 posts)We don't poll this. If you've been debating gun people IRL or online, have you ever asked? "What could we offer that you would accept in exchange?"
edhopper
(33,206 posts)between a Dem and Rep. I doubt the NRA would give up anything.
Haven't we learned by now that the GOP will not compromise on anything.
And you did not respond to my point that this was already as weak a bill as could be mustered.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Renewing the AWB was dead in the water. Law enforcement didn't want it and it was needlessly provocative. I've burned a dozen OPs on this, but the short explanation is that while what people thought it did was popular, what it actually did was so far removed from that that support always dried up when people find out what it actually does (do you really care what angle of grip a rifle has? really?)
A compromise would be: "we want this new legislation, so we will add to it some new legislation the other side also wants."
edhopper
(33,206 posts)that will not do irreparable harm to this country.
And you have seen different polls than me.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/04/16/1202305/-Poll-Americans-still-favor-background-checks-assault-weapons-ban-gun-magazine-capacity-limits
Recursion
(56,582 posts)That is, most people support passing a law that has been on the books for 80 years. The AWB does not limit the speed at which guns can fire, it takes the fastest-firing class of gun and legislates how it can look. It's sort of the opposite of ACA: the individual provisions of ACA poll well while the whole thing polls badly. "Banning assault weapons" polls well, but breaking out the actual restrictions polls horribly (again, nobody actually cares if rifles have bayonet mounts, or what angle their grip is at).
Obviously, if you think repealing Hughes or Federal concealed-carry reciprocity would do irreparable harm to the country, I can't expect you to support them as part of a compromise. We'll have trouble passing anything, though, if most of our party agrees with you rather than me.
edhopper
(33,206 posts)the background checks for that.
Clip size limit and armor piercing bullets to start with.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)See, this is what's so frustrating: you're advocating something that's already law. The definition may need some tweaking (the technology may have run past the law in the past couple of decades; I don't really keep up with ammo tech), but the legal framework is there. It only applies to pistol ammunition, but there's not a rifle in the world that won't penetrate body armor no matter what the ammo is.
Iggo
(47,487 posts)graham4anything
(11,464 posts)Nothing else will stop anything.
and the NRA ultimate desire is to get all 50 states the same so they can get rid of
NYs and Calif. laws.
Which would be the same as they would like to do about abortions.
We need a complete and total reinterpretation
All it takes is ONE change for the better in the court, and the right case.
And yes, let me say I have emailed The Great Equalizer and told him to concentrate on the republicans this time, and get the others out
and then later get the bad dems out
And yes, I want all the $$$$$$ it takes to defeat the NRA. Money is a good thing if it is used to defeat money that is bad.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)That's at least conceivable, but stare decisis makes that much less likely than people want it to be.
edhopper
(33,206 posts)The majority of Americans support Roe. And the vast majority of Americans support checks, 90% in recent polls. Including most republicans and gun owners.
This is the legislature turning there backs on the voters. It is a small powerful lobby forcing something on us.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Hell, even Scalia said that background checks are perfectly permissible, as is the National Firearms Act that keeps machine guns and assault rifles out of civilian hands (kind of like Roe, Heller is much more narrow than its opponents seem to think it is).
I have no polling on this (and I don't think anyone does): what's the current national position on overturning the now-legal principle that individuals have a constitutionally-protected individual right to own firearms?
edhopper
(33,206 posts)forget about this one.
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)Orsino
(37,428 posts)Recursion
(56,582 posts)And if the rank and file aren't willing to compromise at all, Congress will be more than happy to keep the NRA as a fundraising punching bag for the left, and Brady as a fundraising punching bag for the right, and keep doing nothing.
kudzu22
(1,273 posts)Federal FOID card. Pass the background check once and get issued the card with a unique number on it. Set up federal website where dealers and private citizens can check your number and see that it's still valid. Website will give confirmation number with date and ID encoded which can be recorded by the seller. No danger of a national database of who owns which weapons; no need for paranoia over gun confiscation.
In exchange, allow interstate sales without going through FFL. Maybe do something to encourage states to recognize each other's carry permits.
Of course, anyone whose goal really is to have universal background checks would support this. If their true goal is a ban or outright confiscation, they'll hate it.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)I've written my non-voting Representative, and I don't have Senators, so anybody from a Congressionally-represented jurisdiction, please feel free to speak up.
Tom Rinaldo
(22,911 posts)I believe with a sufficiently persistent counter check to the NRA gun manufacturer lobby from mobilized gun safety forces we can and will ultimately win that battle through the electoral system. I think that over time, even in traditional gun culture parts of our nation, we can achieve more comprehensive gun safety measures than merely background checks alone, if those who believe in gun safety remain deeply engaged.
The trade off that I would consider down the road involves semi-automatic assault style weapons. If we establish strong national anti gun trafficking laws and comprehensive background checks, AND we limit ammo magazine capacity to a maximum of ten rounds, I would consider giving up efforts to ban those weapons, if that would sway some votes of current gun advocates. If they dig in however, I would continue working to change public opinion and ultimately Congressional representatives and then include banning assault rifles in the reforms we seek to achieve.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)(I keep bringing up grip shape because that's the one provision of the recently-proposed AWB that the AR platform, the most popular rifle sold today, falls foul of.)
That's something we could work on: limit magazine size with some understanding that the features of legal weapons will no longer be a target of future legislation. That's hard to codify, but it's at least a starting point.
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,085 posts)Stricter measures such as bans on semi-automatic rifles and capacity limits were proposed and then abandoned because they were viewed as too politically risky. Same with the notion of a universal registry.
The hope was that at the very least, background checks would pass. The more controversial measures that had been bundled up were dropped.
It's a sad day in America when the very least controversial gun control measure cannot win passage in Congress. There's no negotiating with the gun lobby. None.
Remember the graphic that Mitch McConnell tackily posted on his Facebook page the day the bill failed in the Senate? There's a sad truth to it all.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Banning semi-automatics actually polls better than banning assault weapons, which maybe shouldn't be surprising because it makes a lot more sense.
Anyways, from my anecdotal experience of talking to a lot of people (and the plural of anecdote is data...), most people I know who supported the AWB thought it was a ban on semi-automatic rifles, or maybe their magazine capacity, rather than a regulation of their appearance (and, realistically, it's a regulation of their grip shape since that's the only place the really popular rifles fall foul of it). That it was packaged with a magazine size restriction kind of seems to have added to that confusion.
Anyways, you'll see a lot of doom and gloom from gun people that restricting magazine size is pointless because there's so many of them already out there, but not from me: magazines do (eventually) break, and that would be a start.
Ikonoklast
(23,973 posts)Matter of time before this question will be a moot point, the USSC will change, and so will law.
XRubicon
(2,212 posts)This is basic stuff that should have been law all along.
Well regulated...
Recursion
(56,582 posts)You do see that, right? That was that bit about how hating the way the Senate works doesn't change it.
XRubicon
(2,212 posts)I don't care how the Senate works, these bought off cowards will stand for election at some point and be turned out for going against the clear will of the people.
kudzu22
(1,273 posts)but only 4% think it's an important issue. Not likely to swing any votes in upcoming elections.
XRubicon
(2,212 posts)Paladin
(28,204 posts)As if we're asking too much. As if we're the ones supporting measures which aren't backed by the majority of the American public. As if we haven't dropped back, time and time again over the years, in an effort to placate Gun Enthusiasts. And it hasn't gotten us anywhere.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)"Asking for less than everything I want" isn't a concession. What are you willing to positively offer?
Sausage-making, like I said. This is why most people leave the Hill eventually, but it's the only thing that actually works.
Paladin
(28,204 posts)The gun activism movement has been coddled and conceded to, far out of proportion to its actual numbers and in spite of what the overwhelming majority of the public favors. And the fact that you don't consider "Asking for less than everything you want" a concession is the very definition of the problem, here.
Raine1967
(11,589 posts)About the Hughes amendment; I am under the impression that it was the ban of new machine guns passed after the Firearms Owners Protection Act.
These are considered fully automatic weapons, no?
I see what you are getting at with this post, and I actually think it very thought provoking -- but I have to say, I would not like to see that particular part of FOPA repealed.
We are talking machine guns.
There could be a case to be made that in 1986 there were very few (if more than one I would be surprised) machine guns deaths in the USA. That said, we had a far smaller problem of militia groups then as well. Things have really changed since 1986-- I think the hughes amendment is actually more important now than it was then.
What am I willing to give up for Universal Background checks? I'm not sure. How about a federal minimum age requirement for most gun ownership -- long guns excepted with modification regulations?
Recursion
(56,582 posts)That's interesting. Currently you have to be 21 to buy a handgun; move that up to 25?
Raine1967
(11,589 posts)But I'm not sure about 21 being the age able to buy a gun -- handgun or otherwise.
Someone pointed to me a link that led me here, about Vermont:
Section 4008. Possession of firearms by children A child under the age of sixteen years shall not, without the consent of his parents or guardian, have in his possession or control a pistol or revolver constructed or designed for the use of gunpowder or other explosive substance with leaden ball or shot. A child who violates a provision of this section shall be deemed a delinquent child under the provisions of chapter 11 of Title 33.
It appears to me that a 16 year old can have a gun. I guess, I would be willing to debate the idea of allowing the age limit lowered with complete parental consent and responsibility. Concealed carry should be out of the question for minors -- under the age of 18.
As you said: I'm not rah-rah on overturning Hughes; I brought it up as an example
I want you to know, I'm not rah-rah either about the examples I proposed. I think your OP is a good place to discuss.
I will say honestly that I am very tentative about moving backwards. I don't want any law that does that.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)There's a Federal age limit on purchasing handguns, not on ownership. (A parent can purchase a handgun and give it to a child, subject to state restrictions.)
I will say honestly that I am very tentative about moving backwards. I don't want any law that does that.
Fair enough, and I expect a lot of that. I brought this up because I don't think it's anything that we've even contemplated, which may have something to do with why we haven't gotten very far.
Robb
(39,665 posts)The gun addicts are desperate for something that looks like compromise for a short-term solution -- so they can claim they "helped" or "extended an olive branch" or whatever bullshit this time.
We don't have to, because this is a long fight, and we're winning the long game. And that will be it.
You can keep your sausage, thanks.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)Recursion
(56,582 posts)Mass shootings are horrible and get a lot of media attention, but they're miniscule compared to "normal" shootings, which kill nearly 10,000 people every year. It's kind of a bad thing that it's random mass shootings that get people talking about gun control because
1. They're very very rare compared to "normal" shootings, and
2. They're very much unlike normal shootings in ways that sometimes make us chase after the wrong thing
morningfog
(18,115 posts)DanTex
(20,709 posts)Recursion
(56,582 posts)I don't share the fear of a national gun registry that many gun owners do, but that fear is there. But what sort of concessions would you be willing to make? (We could start with who could have access to that registry and for what purposes, maybe? Or also just an unrelated provision to get people interested.)
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Although I do think it's a bad idea to allow concealed carry in places like Manhattan, I think the gun registry would do enough good to counterbalance that. And it would be enough if all handguns and semi-automatic long guns were registered.
I'd also be fine with making the registry confidential, requiring some kind of warrant to access, and any other security precautions. The purpose of the warrant is to prevent guns from getting diverted to criminal markets, not to spy on people and confiscate their guns.
One thing I would want is some kind of annual fee for renewing registrations. The purpose of this is, first, to discourage gun ownership, and particularly "casual" or "irresponsible" gun ownership. And, second, to compensate society for the negative externalities of gun violence.
What I really would want is for handgun ownership to be restricted on a "may issue" basis, so you have to give some kind of reason for owning a handgun, like in a lot of other countries. Of course, that is never going to happen here, but then again neither is a gun registry, or even universal background checks apparently...
RantinRavin
(507 posts)The concern is background checks on private sales of firearms.
Legislation should be written to do the following:
1. ATF shall develop form XXXX "Personal Sale or Delivery of Firearm"
2. If the seller and purchaser are relatives or otherwise known to each other the form would allow for a personal guarantee by both the seller and purchaser that the purchaser has full firearm rights under federal and state laws. Perjury under this section will be a second degree felony punishable by up to 10 years in federal prison. Don't want to take the chance of a federal prison sentence, follow #3
3. If the seller and purchaser are not familiar to each other then a background check is required. This background check may be done by any FFL, State Police, County Sheriff, or local police department. The fee for this service shall be $10. ( $5 which is the normal fee for the background check, and $5 to the organization doing the check. ) The authorization number shall be listed on form ATF XXXX.
4. The seller of the firearm shall retain form XXXX for a period of 10 years, and shall be presented upon demand by any law enforcement agency.
If someone commits a crime and the firearm is traced back to the seller, they are given full protection from criminal and civil liability if they can produce the form XXXX showing an approved background check was done. If the seller personally guaranteed the form, civil and criminal charges are possible.
Bring this up as a totally separate legislation. No amendments about magazine capacity, or any other concepts or ideas.....let it stand on it's own.
Warpy
(110,909 posts)90% of the people in this country want it so it should be passed on its own merits.
If the GOP and a few nitwit Democrats like Begich and Baucus continue to stonewall, it should cost them politically in 2014. In a rational country, every one of them up for re election would be out.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)It may be only 10% of the country, but that 10% make up a lot of his home state. Ditto Begich.