Ballot Intiatives - Bloomberg's New Gambit

We (the people) may have a constitutional right to bear arms but nothing in the constitution says that said arms must be functional. Or that ammo be made available.

A Clinton presidency may prove so damaging to gun owners that any "return to normal" may be impossible.
 
Universal background checks (however loosely defined) are extremely popular among nongun owners AND popular among gun owners.

This is Pew poll reported in the Nov. issue of Shooting Industry:

Mixed Support
The expansion of background
checks is one of the key goals of the
anti-gun movement. Pew reports 81
percent of those surveyed support
“Background checks for private and
gun show sales.” Ninety percent of
Clinton Supporters favor the issue, as
do 75 percent of Trump Supporters.
Overall support for “Creating a
federal database to track gun sales”
(which translates to gun registration)
continues as a strong issue: 68 percent
in favor vs. 30 percent opposed.
Eighty-five percent of Clinton
Supporters favor the database, while
46 percent of Trump Supporters say
they support the measure
Click to expand...
 
Bloomberg has pretty much shown he will spend whatever it takes to get his way on guns. Washington and California have a very liberal majority and thus get is attention.
 
Not living in one of these states, what is the messaging that argues against UBCs at gun shows for private sales that occur there (I'll leave out private sales outside of shows for the moment).

Is there a coherent argument made against the popular appeal and surface validity of such measures?

I'm curious. If you don't study the issue, why wouldn't you support such based on the inititative presentations?

Remember just using an argument for the choir - like 'shall not be infringed' probably doesn't cut it with folks outside of the choir.
 
Glenn,
I don't live in one of those states either. But the issue I see is that the logical conclusion of such legislation is the eventual requirement that every single gun sale (or gift for that matter) will require the recepiant to undergo a background check. This will be mandated regardless of the transaction venue. It's the slippery slope argument essentially.
The underlying concern is that any ground given by gun rights supporters won't be the end of the control push.

And if you look at states like California, they have a point. First it's a ban on modern sporting rifles in their true from, then UBC's, then banned standard magazine capacities, then the attempt to create micro stamping, now ammo background checks..... There is just no trust it will end at UCB's so any legislation is opposed.
 
Ballot Intiatives - Bloomberg's New Gambit
Click to expand...

It's not NEW.

I do live in one of those states, WA passed I-594 last election cycle (going on two years now).

The initiative was passed by the 5 counties in the Seattle metro/I-5 corridor area. NONE of the other counties in the state passed it, BUT the number of voters in those metro counties were enough to make it the law.

HOWEVER, to date, neither the state patrol, various sheriffs, nor even the Dept of Fish and Game will enforce it.

The initiative made law is so poorly written, enforcement agencies are refusing to enforce any part of it, UNTIL the state provides explicit guidelines how to go about it. And, so far, (as far as I know) the state has not yet done this.

Gunshows go on, with voluntary compliance. One FFL attends the show, and does nothing but run the required background checks for ALL the sales at the show. Generally, the charge is split between the buyer and the seller.

The catch-22 about this is that while the law is not being enforced, there is no case that can be used to challenge it. And the longer it goes unchallenged, the weaker even the most valid challenge appears in the court of public opinion. Basically, most will think "its been the law for years, what's your problem with it, NOW?"
 
To the uninformed who don't know the details, it seems practical. However they just don't understand that it requires registration, and they may not understand what the world's history with registration entails.

Superficially, it sounds like a good idea to me if you didn't have registration. But without registration it would not work. It would not bring about the desired results for the uniformed. It would bring about the desired results for those anti's who want a gun free (unsafe) society.
 
dajowi said:
We (the people) may have a constitutional right to bear arms but nothing in the constitution says that said arms must be functional. Or that ammo be made available.
Click to expand...

That is splitting hairs. Making one component of a right illegal (or with excessive cost/regulations) so that right can't be used has the same effect as banning the whole right.
 
I remember a member of the current administration’s healthcare reform team stating something to the effect that they relied on, “the ignorance of the American people”. Sadly the strategy seems to be deceiving the voter instead of educating the voter. If a person is too lazy or simply too busy with the aspects of daily life all they get is a superficial review of an issue and many don’t even get that. I am amazed at the number of people I hear complaining about the “confusing” ballot initiatives, but never take time to research them ahead of time and see them for the first time at the polls.
 
So I ask again, what is the counter messaging strategy that would work against the surface validity seen by the average intelligent but uninformed voter?
 
I’m not sure there is an easy answer to your question, but I suspect you already know that. I can see why the average person might support background checks at gun shows. Also, I’m not sure there is a simple 30 second sound bite or 140 character message that would convince them otherwise.

This is one of the obvious problems with binding ballot initiatives as opposed to the more traditional representative style of law making. Congress is supposed to make laws after spending time researching the issue to come up with a fair and enforceable law. Now, we all know this doesn’t always work, but at least in theory it allows for the opportunity to consider all sides of an issue and the unintended consequences.

The Ballot Initiative allows well funded groups to present only one side of an issue to a less than engaged electorate who dutifully trudge to the polls and do what they think is the right thing. I suppose the only real counter message is some equally well designed campaign that attempts to tell the other side.

If I were to focus on one point it would be the fact that most gun crime is committed by people who already obtain their guns illegally and would continue to do so by simply ignoring any new law.
 
Glenn E Meyer said:
Not living in one of these states, what is the messaging that argues against UBCs at gun shows for private sales that occur there (I'll leave out private sales outside of shows for the moment).

Is there a coherent argument made against the popular appeal and surface validity of such measures?
Click to expand...

Well, since there are already background checks at FFLs, it would seem the anti-gun types are after the gun show "loophole" (aka freedom) as a guise to regulate all gun sales between individuals. You could put out a commercial, say, with a couple of people at home, with one who decides to sell a hunting rifle to the other. It could involve stuff like them going down to the gun store to do the background check at an inconvenient time, waiting in a line like at the DMV, forking over a wad of cash, etc. Perhaps at the end of the commercial, you could have them thinking, "why am I doing this?"
 
what is the counter messaging strategy that would work against the surface validity seen by the average intelligent but uninformed voter?
Click to expand...

I don't know that there is one, not in an easy sound byte or text slogan.

And that is mainly because the main message that "background checks make us safer" is PARTIALLY TRUE, and FULLY believed by the under-informed voter.

The holes, and flaws in the idea are the parts that the background check advocates are carefully NOT TELLING the public. Deliberately so.

To understand where, and how the idea of universal background checks fails, one has to understand what the check is, and how it works, and the average "under informed" voter does not know this, and does not CARE to know this, and the UBC pushers are making sure they don't tell them!

In the recent WA I-594 campaign, we were saturated with TV ads telling us how that, if passed, the law would keep "domestic abusers" from being able to get a gun. IGNORING the fact that for DECADES the existing law ALREADY DOES THAT, as well as ANY law can.

We are told UBCs will stop school (or other mass) shootings, ignoring, again, the facts that the people doing these things #1 generally don't have anything in their background that disqualifies them from possessing a weapon, and #2, they don't obey the law(s) anyway...

We are told the benefit to UBCs is keeping people who shouldn't have a gun from getting one. WHY THEN is there any reason to run a check on people who ALREADY HAVE guns?? What "safety" is enhanced by that? None that I can see.

And here's another thing, boil it down, and its the dreaded "P" word, PROFILING...,everyone who fits the profile (wants to buy a gun) is automatically guilty of a disqualifying offense, UNTIL/unless the background check approves them. HOW is this NOT prior restraint on the exercise of a constitutionally enumerated natural right??

Add in the fact that people who do not have a history in the system cannot be "stopped" by any background check, and the unfairness of the situation for all those people who did do something "felony stupid" or "Lautenberg violent" in their youth, and have been model citizens ever since, years, and decades...

The folks who want you to buy stocks make a point of saying how past performance does not guarantee future results. Funny how that concept doesn't ever seem to be applied to background checks.

Much has been made, on our side, about how the UBC system cannot work, as promised, without full and total gun (and owner) registration. The idea of a UBC can work without any gun registration. BUT, we are not being offered that kind of system as an option. The ONLY kind of system their side offers, or accepts is one that would require registration, because THAT is what they want.

And then there is the government, being too busy to prosecute more than a tiny token amount of the people who break the law when they try to buy a gun (lying on the 4473 form is a CRIME), but one our current VP says "we don't have time for that" when asked about actually prosecuting those people...

We were (and in some places, still are) taught that the USA is a land of liberty and freedom. Background checks are a sign of an alles verboten society, where if it is not specifically permitted and approved, it is forbidden. That is NOT Liberty. That is NOT Freedom.

It is, however, what gun control advocates want...
 
ATN082268 said:
...You could put out a commercial, say, with a couple of people at home, with one who decides to sell a hunting rifle to the other. It could involve stuff like them going down to the gun store to do the background check at an inconvenient time, waiting in a line like at the DMV, forking over a wad of cash, etc....
Click to expand...

Except, No One Will Care!

That's basically Glenn's point. No one, except [not all] gun owners, care that universal background check requirements make private transfers of guns less convenient and more expensive.

Even if it's highly questionable whether universal background check requirements can do anything worthwhile to keep guns out of the wrong hands, it's not a big enough deal for anyone, except [not all] gun owners, to worry about.

So who has an argument against universal background checks that someone, other than, perhaps, a gun owner is going to care about?
 
44 AMP I think summed it up well in conjunction with others discussing registration, etc.

But I would like to also say in short: We simply do not know how well the gun laws in the US prevent gun crime because we do not enforce them now. Likewise how would UBC be enforced?

Suppose UBC passes, if my guns arnt registered and I sell them to you with no BC, how would anyone know? So the argument against it really is that it's unenforceable.
 
Federal Laws effecting individuals don't work well at all. They get enforced but so rarely that they may as well be non-functional.

State laws get enforced but don't mirror federal laws. In my state for example felons are allowed to own guns so long as the felony was not violent. There are restrictions but possession is legal by the State.

I don't see how UBCs can be stopped in most states when put to the electorate. In my state there is a very strong gun culture. UBC's would never pass here. In fact they would not even get through the legislature to get on the ballot.

So maybe that is the answer: Cultivate a strong culture of civil rights
 
Frank Ettin said:
So who has an argument against universal background checks that someone, other than, perhaps, a gun owner is going to care about?
Click to expand...

I think it is important to articulate the issue of Universal Background Checks in general. Besides the person who owns a gun, spouses, friends, etc. of the gun owner may care about that person and vote accordingly. If you are asking for an argument to use with someone who does not own a gun, will never own a gun or know anyone who owns a gun (at least in a friendly sense), I'd say good luck :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top