Gun law "compromises"

When the grabbers talk "compromise", what they are really talking about is the conversion of a right into a privilege - a privilege that can be easily revoked statutorily at a later time.
 
JimDandy said:
Spats McGee said:
I'm entirely uninterested in having the feds set the standards for CCW
Click to expand...
I'm willing to let the state set the standard for CCW. And let the Feds mandate reciprocity.
Click to expand...
There's the rub right there. I don't believe for a moment that it will ever work that way. IMHO, if the federal gov't mandates reciprocity, it will set the standards. If it does not do so from the beginning of national reciprocity, it will do so in very short order afterwards. And who do you think will get to set the standards?
 
The Background check proposal that failed in the Senate contained a provision that made states recognize other states concealed carry permits.

There is no "good" gun legislation.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
There's the rub right there. I don't believe for a moment that it will ever work that way. IMHO, if the federal gov't mandates reciprocity, it will set the standards. If it does not do so from the beginning of national reciprocity, it will do so in very short order afterwards. And who do you think will get to set the standards?
Click to expand...

We're only not looking at National Reciprocity already by about 3 votes on an amendment, and a better UBG bill- or A different makeup of the Judiciary committee. The amendment wasn't a bad swing at it. You'll have to drill down a couple links.. S2690 on the next two pages
 
You do recognize that I consider "better UBG bill" to be problematic right? IMHO, it's a little like saying "better influenza." ;) I don't support federally-mandated reciprocity, either.

Also, I'm having trouble with your link. I don't think there are ~2700 bills in the Senate right now, and depending on which number I exclude (assuming that you mistyped something), I either wind up with a fisheries bill, or something about Fillipino veterans.
 
You do recognize that I consider "better UBG bill" to be problematic right? IMHO, it's a little like saying "better influenza." I don't support federally-mandated reciprocity, either.
Click to expand...
It is the very definition of a Hobson's choice - the key is not to be put into a position where the choice must be made.
 
Well, that solves the link, but the bill still has problems:

First, while I'm certain that Senator Cornyn is well-meaning, and I'm pretty sure that the NRA supports federally-mandated reciprocity, I do not. As noted above, if such were to pass, I'd give it about 36 hours between passage and someone screaming "we've GOT to have STANDARDS!" No, thank you.

Second, it wouldn't apply to anyone travelling to Illinois, nor would it allow Illinois residents to carry. Take a look at my version, edited only for brevity and emphasis:
(a) In General.--Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any State or political subdivision thereof to the contrary, (1) an individual who is not prohibited . . . . and who is carrying a government-issued [photo ID] . . . . and a valid [CCL] . . . . may possess or carry a concealed handgun (other than a machinegun or destructive device) . . . .in any State other than the State of residence of the individual that--

``(A) has a statue that allows residents of the State to obtain licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms; or

``(B) does not prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms by residents of the State for lawful purposes; and

``(2) an individual who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm, and who is carrying a government-issued photographic identification document and is entitled and not prohibited from carrying a concealed firearm in the State in which the individual resides otherwise than as described in paragraph (1), may possess or carry a concealed handgun (other than a machinegun or destructive device) that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce in any State other than the State of residence of the individual that--

``(A) has a statute that allows residents of the State to obtain licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms; or

``(B) does not prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms by residents of the State for lawful purposes.
Click to expand...
 
It only missed by three. It was the amendment closest to passing- evn more so than any of the "control" amendments. In a (D) controlled Senate.
Click to expand...
If I'm being argumentative, it's because I enjoy the discussion - I hope you'll understand. In any case, an argument has been made that this bill was intended by the administration not so much to be enacted legislation, but to contain sufficient poison pills that would slide by the Senate and be rejected by the HoR, thus supplying the administration with political capital for the 2014 midterms. Thus, some horse-trading, permitting amendments which would be otherwise unconscionable to gun-grabbers was allowed to be voted up or down knowing that there was enough poison in the bill that the representatives would vote against the overall provisions even if one or more amendments were to our benefit.
 
JimDandy said:
I don't expect he'd have much say in it if passed.
Click to expand...
Perhaps not, but it opens the door for federal regulation of CCW standards. I do not want want folks from other states, in whose election I have no voice, getting a vote in my CCW standards.
 
I guess what I'm saying is - if you created a clean bill which provided for federally-enforced reciprocity of CHL permits, and didn't allow states to opt out, and which required the "host" state to honor any and all other states' CHL's without equivocation or burdensome requirements - I see no chance of that passing on its own.
 
True, but that wasn't what was proposed. What was proposed was closer to "If you think it's OK for your state's citizens, it's good enough for all the other citizens"
 
Here are some compromises I like:
Repeal the GOPA of 1984 for
Fund a study to see what grade levels would be best to engage our youth about the utility and value of guns in their lives.

Repeal all background checks for
Fund a report which looks into how and why criminals do not get caught by the background check systems and why those wasteful systems should be replaced with prosecuting crime.

National unlicensed carry. . .aka 2nd amendment carry for
Funding gun ownership and gun training for our working class families.

Repeal NFA for studying how to really keep at risk people from turning to crime.

Eliminating the ATF and turning that cost into a tax rebate annually to all tax payers as a reminder of how bad the ATF was.
 
While it's nice to float wish lists of stuff we want, there are two salient things to remember. The first is that they WILL NOT give us anything we want if they can avoid it. The second is that any concessions they might make will be repealed, or at least legislated into utter uselessness down the road.

If it looks like they've got something with a chance at passage, things like nationwide reciprocity or alterations to the NFA will be appended as poison pills to kill it, with little expectation of success or benefit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top