Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Recursion

(56,582 posts)
Mon Apr 22, 2013, 10:35 AM Apr 2013

Sausage 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?

77 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Sausage making: what are you willing to concede in return for background checks? (Original Post) Recursion Apr 2013 OP
Why should the majority who aren't gun fanatics concede on background checks? Hoyt Apr 2013 #1
Because I would like universal background checks to pass? Recursion Apr 2013 #18
What do you want to concede? Everything, so that the legislation makes Wayne LaPierre giddy. Hoyt Apr 2013 #57
Speaking for myself, I'd concede nationwide concealed carry reciprocity Recursion Apr 2013 #59
You can tell those who promote more guns in more places, by what they are willing concede. Hoyt Apr 2013 #61
"house trading that would email" DURHAM D Apr 2013 #2
"Horse". Sorry. Android keyboard. Recursion Apr 2013 #6
"horse trading that would email"? DURHAM D Apr 2013 #7
$&%^. "entail". Sigh (nt) Recursion Apr 2013 #9
No way on either count. geek tragedy Apr 2013 #3
It sounds like you don't fully trust the background checks kudzu22 Apr 2013 #10
I don't trust any person with a gun when they're near me. geek tragedy Apr 2013 #19
Canada's firearms ownership rate is roughly the same as the US per capita Recursion Apr 2013 #21
Canada has strict gun registration with audits. geek tragedy Apr 2013 #24
Not anymore, though they did for years Recursion Apr 2013 #27
handguns are still required to be registered, geek tragedy Apr 2013 #29
Yes, true, and handguns are also more tightly controlled in the US than long guns Recursion Apr 2013 #31
That makes sense. geek tragedy Apr 2013 #43
You know, that never occurred to me, but it's worth doing some numbers on Recursion Apr 2013 #44
less than half of the NRA's money comes from individual gun owners geek tragedy Apr 2013 #47
Dodd was a little ahead of the facts there Recursion Apr 2013 #50
No, it's not. It is much lower. DanTex Apr 2013 #64
We don't really know because we don't know how bad compliance with the late registry was Recursion Apr 2013 #66
I am willing to give up the entire current Congress, replace them all, if that's what it takes. nt bemildred Apr 2013 #4
I don't believe there's anything that can be put in that would pacify the NRA or the el_bryanto Apr 2013 #5
OK, that's a valid argument, but that's a different question Recursion Apr 2013 #15
What should I offer them? What do gun owners want that they don't have? el_bryanto Apr 2013 #62
Have you asked? Has the party polled this question? (nt) Recursion Apr 2013 #65
It frankly seems like a non-sensical question - and kind of a dishonest one el_bryanto Apr 2013 #68
Because edhopper Apr 2013 #8
If the 10% are legislatively powerful and the 90% want legislation to pass, yes. Recursion Apr 2013 #11
What you don't get is edhopper Apr 2013 #17
I mentioned two things. There are probably more. Recursion Apr 2013 #20
The bill was already a compromiose edhopper Apr 2013 #26
Only in our minds, I think Recursion Apr 2013 #30
I cannot think of a single legislation the other side wants edhopper Apr 2013 #33
Most people also think the AWB bans assault rifles and machine guns Recursion Apr 2013 #37
I would want far more than just edhopper Apr 2013 #39
Armor piercing bullets are banned under 18 USC 921 Recursion Apr 2013 #41
Chicken wings. (n/t) Iggo Apr 2013 #12
Reinterpretation of the 2nd. Then let the new 2nd forever decide it. graham4anything Apr 2013 #13
So I fear this is the left's version of the right's decades-long crusade to overturn Roe v. Wade Recursion Apr 2013 #23
A false analogy edhopper Apr 2013 #28
Background checks is not an overturning of Heller and McDonald Recursion Apr 2013 #32
Oops. You were reply to something else edhopper Apr 2013 #35
I don't care. The NRA don't care when 90% wanted what they didn't. graham4anything Apr 2013 #77
What did Congress concede to us in exchange for doing nothing on guns? n/t Orsino Apr 2013 #14
Well, they took a lot of money and time from us in exchange for doing nothing Recursion Apr 2013 #16
Here's my proposal kudzu22 Apr 2013 #22
I love the Federal Firearm Operators License (or whatever we should call it) idea Recursion Apr 2013 #25
On background checks? Nothing. I would rather fight that out in the public sphere Tom Rinaldo Apr 2013 #34
I think limiting magazine size is a much better idea than regulating grip shape Recursion Apr 2013 #38
Sausage making was already attempted. Unfortunately, it failed. Tommy_Carcetti Apr 2013 #36
Nobody proposed a ban on semi-automatic rifles. This is part of the problem: you think DiFi did Recursion Apr 2013 #40
Nothing. Time and tide change all. Ikonoklast Apr 2013 #42
Nothing. We don't need to trade anything for background checks. XRubicon Apr 2013 #45
You clearly do if you actually want them to become law Recursion Apr 2013 #46
No, only you think that is true. XRubicon Apr 2013 #49
You may have 90% support kudzu22 Apr 2013 #56
Keep telling yourself that XRubicon Apr 2013 #60
It's always about the gun control side giving in, isn't it? Paladin Apr 2013 #48
I don't recall gun control proponents offering anything at any point here Recursion Apr 2013 #54
I stand by my comments. Paladin Apr 2013 #74
Recursion, Raine1967 Apr 2013 #51
I'm not rah-rah on overturning Hughes; I brought it up as an example Recursion Apr 2013 #52
As I said most; I am not well versed in gun laws. Raine1967 Apr 2013 #63
Yeah, there's a difference in purchase and ownership Recursion Apr 2013 #69
Nothing. I gave at the office, thanks. Robb Apr 2013 #53
Fewer senseless mass shootings. morningfog Apr 2013 #55
Not to go on a tangent, but I think that's the wrong goal Recursion Apr 2013 #58
Tangent noted. It is not the sole goal. morningfog Apr 2013 #72
Nothing. I'd concede something for a national gun registry. DanTex Apr 2013 #67
OK, that's a good goal too Recursion Apr 2013 #70
I'd concede a lot. For example, Hughes and conceal carry reciprocity. DanTex Apr 2013 #71
My concept of what it needed RantinRavin Apr 2013 #73
Not a damned thing. Warpy Apr 2013 #75
How will it cost Baucus? Recursion Apr 2013 #76
 

Hoyt

(54,770 posts)
1. Why should the majority who aren't gun fanatics concede on background checks?
Mon Apr 22, 2013, 10:40 AM
Apr 2013

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)
18. Because I would like universal background checks to pass?
Mon Apr 22, 2013, 10:52 AM
Apr 2013
There should be nothing controversial about background checks as proposed.

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)
57. What do you want to concede? Everything, so that the legislation makes Wayne LaPierre giddy.
Mon Apr 22, 2013, 11:49 AM
Apr 2013

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)
59. Speaking for myself, I'd concede nationwide concealed carry reciprocity
Mon Apr 22, 2013, 11:51 AM
Apr 2013

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)
61. You can tell those who promote more guns in more places, by what they are willing concede.
Mon Apr 22, 2013, 11:59 AM
Apr 2013

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.

 

geek tragedy

(68,868 posts)
3. No way on either count.
Mon Apr 22, 2013, 10:43 AM
Apr 2013

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)
10. It sounds like you don't fully trust the background checks
Mon Apr 22, 2013, 10:48 AM
Apr 2013

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)
19. I don't trust any person with a gun when they're near me.
Mon Apr 22, 2013, 10:53 AM
Apr 2013

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)
21. Canada's firearms ownership rate is roughly the same as the US per capita
Mon Apr 22, 2013, 10:56 AM
Apr 2013

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)
24. Canada has strict gun registration with audits.
Mon Apr 22, 2013, 10:59 AM
Apr 2013

Something that the RKBA crowd seems to equate with Nazi Germany.

Recursion

(56,582 posts)
27. Not anymore, though they did for years
Mon Apr 22, 2013, 11:00 AM
Apr 2013

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)
29. handguns are still required to be registered,
Mon Apr 22, 2013, 11:03 AM
Apr 2013

Only hunting weapons are exempt from the registration requirements now.

Recursion

(56,582 posts)
31. Yes, true, and handguns are also more tightly controlled in the US than long guns
Mon Apr 22, 2013, 11:05 AM
Apr 2013

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)
43. That makes sense.
Mon Apr 22, 2013, 11:29 AM
Apr 2013

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)
44. You know, that never occurred to me, but it's worth doing some numbers on
Mon Apr 22, 2013, 11:31 AM
Apr 2013

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)
47. less than half of the NRA's money comes from individual gun owners
Mon Apr 22, 2013, 11:37 AM
Apr 2013

Majority comes from the corporate sector, e.g. the manufacturers.


Recursion

(56,582 posts)
50. Dodd was a little ahead of the facts there
Mon Apr 22, 2013, 11:42 AM
Apr 2013

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.

Recursion

(56,582 posts)
66. We don't really know because we don't know how bad compliance with the late registry was
Mon Apr 22, 2013, 12:10 PM
Apr 2013

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.

el_bryanto

(11,804 posts)
5. I don't believe there's anything that can be put in that would pacify the NRA or the
Mon Apr 22, 2013, 10:44 AM
Apr 2013

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)
15. OK, that's a valid argument, but that's a different question
Mon Apr 22, 2013, 10:50 AM
Apr 2013

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)
62. What should I offer them? What do gun owners want that they don't have?
Mon Apr 22, 2013, 12:06 PM
Apr 2013

Are there guns, or bullets or magazines they don't have access now that we should offer up?

Bryant

el_bryanto

(11,804 posts)
68. It frankly seems like a non-sensical question - and kind of a dishonest one
Mon Apr 22, 2013, 12:12 PM
Apr 2013

"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

Recursion

(56,582 posts)
11. If the 10% are legislatively powerful and the 90% want legislation to pass, yes.
Mon Apr 22, 2013, 10:48 AM
Apr 2013

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)
17. What you don't get is
Mon Apr 22, 2013, 10:51 AM
Apr 2013

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)
20. I mentioned two things. There are probably more.
Mon Apr 22, 2013, 10:53 AM
Apr 2013

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)
26. The bill was already a compromiose
Mon Apr 22, 2013, 11:00 AM
Apr 2013

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)
30. Only in our minds, I think
Mon Apr 22, 2013, 11:04 AM
Apr 2013

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."

Recursion

(56,582 posts)
37. Most people also think the AWB bans assault rifles and machine guns
Mon Apr 22, 2013, 11:13 AM
Apr 2013

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)
39. I would want far more than just
Mon Apr 22, 2013, 11:17 AM
Apr 2013

the background checks for that.
Clip size limit and armor piercing bullets to start with.

Recursion

(56,582 posts)
41. Armor piercing bullets are banned under 18 USC 921
Mon Apr 22, 2013, 11:23 AM
Apr 2013

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.

 

graham4anything

(11,464 posts)
13. Reinterpretation of the 2nd. Then let the new 2nd forever decide it.
Mon Apr 22, 2013, 10:49 AM
Apr 2013

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)
23. So I fear this is the left's version of the right's decades-long crusade to overturn Roe v. Wade
Mon Apr 22, 2013, 10:58 AM
Apr 2013

That's at least conceivable, but stare decisis makes that much less likely than people want it to be.

edhopper

(33,206 posts)
28. A false analogy
Mon Apr 22, 2013, 11:03 AM
Apr 2013

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)
32. Background checks is not an overturning of Heller and McDonald
Mon Apr 22, 2013, 11:08 AM
Apr 2013

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?

Recursion

(56,582 posts)
16. Well, they took a lot of money and time from us in exchange for doing nothing
Mon Apr 22, 2013, 10:51 AM
Apr 2013

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)
22. Here's my proposal
Mon Apr 22, 2013, 10:57 AM
Apr 2013

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)
25. I love the Federal Firearm Operators License (or whatever we should call it) idea
Mon Apr 22, 2013, 10:59 AM
Apr 2013

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)
34. On background checks? Nothing. I would rather fight that out in the public sphere
Mon Apr 22, 2013, 11:09 AM
Apr 2013

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)
38. I think limiting magazine size is a much better idea than regulating grip shape
Mon Apr 22, 2013, 11:15 AM
Apr 2013

(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)
36. Sausage making was already attempted. Unfortunately, it failed.
Mon Apr 22, 2013, 11:12 AM
Apr 2013

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)
40. Nobody proposed a ban on semi-automatic rifles. This is part of the problem: you think DiFi did
Mon Apr 22, 2013, 11:19 AM
Apr 2013

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)
42. Nothing. Time and tide change all.
Mon Apr 22, 2013, 11:25 AM
Apr 2013

Matter of time before this question will be a moot point, the USSC will change, and so will law.

XRubicon

(2,212 posts)
45. Nothing. We don't need to trade anything for background checks.
Mon Apr 22, 2013, 11:33 AM
Apr 2013

This is basic stuff that should have been law all along.

Well regulated...

Recursion

(56,582 posts)
46. You clearly do if you actually want them to become law
Mon Apr 22, 2013, 11:35 AM
Apr 2013

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)
49. No, only you think that is true.
Mon Apr 22, 2013, 11:40 AM
Apr 2013

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)
56. You may have 90% support
Mon Apr 22, 2013, 11:47 AM
Apr 2013

but only 4% think it's an important issue. Not likely to swing any votes in upcoming elections.

Paladin

(28,204 posts)
48. It's always about the gun control side giving in, isn't it?
Mon Apr 22, 2013, 11:39 AM
Apr 2013

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)
54. I don't recall gun control proponents offering anything at any point here
Mon Apr 22, 2013, 11:45 AM
Apr 2013

"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)
74. I stand by my comments.
Mon Apr 22, 2013, 12:36 PM
Apr 2013

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)
51. Recursion,
Mon Apr 22, 2013, 11:42 AM
Apr 2013

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)
52. I'm not rah-rah on overturning Hughes; I brought it up as an example
Mon Apr 22, 2013, 11:43 AM
Apr 2013
How about a federal minimum age requirement for most gun ownership -- long guns excepted with modification regulations?

That's interesting. Currently you have to be 21 to buy a handgun; move that up to 25?

Raine1967

(11,589 posts)
63. As I said most; I am not well versed in gun laws.
Mon Apr 22, 2013, 12:06 PM
Apr 2013

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 4007. Furnishing firearms to children A person, firm or corporation, other than a parent or guardian, who sells or furnishes to a minor under the age of sixteen years a firearm or other dangerous weapon or ammunition for firearms shall be fined not more than $50.00 nor less than $10.00. This section shall not apply to an instructor or teacher who furnishes firearms to pupils for instruction and drill.

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.
Vermont law doesn't seem to make distinct lines about handguns and other firearms.

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)
69. Yeah, there's a difference in purchase and ownership
Mon Apr 22, 2013, 12:12 PM
Apr 2013

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)
53. Nothing. I gave at the office, thanks.
Mon Apr 22, 2013, 11:44 AM
Apr 2013

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.

Recursion

(56,582 posts)
58. Not to go on a tangent, but I think that's the wrong goal
Mon Apr 22, 2013, 11:49 AM
Apr 2013

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

Recursion

(56,582 posts)
70. OK, that's a good goal too
Mon Apr 22, 2013, 12:13 PM
Apr 2013

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)
71. I'd concede a lot. For example, Hughes and conceal carry reciprocity.
Mon Apr 22, 2013, 12:20 PM
Apr 2013

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)
73. My concept of what it needed
Mon Apr 22, 2013, 12:32 PM
Apr 2013

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)
75. Not a damned thing.
Mon Apr 22, 2013, 12:40 PM
Apr 2013

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)
76. How will it cost Baucus?
Mon Apr 22, 2013, 12:47 PM
Apr 2013

It may be only 10% of the country, but that 10% make up a lot of his home state. Ditto Begich.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Sausage making: what are ...