If We Had To Swallow One New Gun Control Law, Which One?

[TDL]

The genius of the UBC is that the mere legal requirement of a UBC doesn't logically require a registry, but the argument against it that explains why it doesn't work simultaneously argues for its expansion into a registry.
A UBC is a clever wedge argument.

yes, it isn't the other side's only win win, ie a) if UBC lowers harm, that shows gun control helps, therefore we need more gun control; or b) if UBC does not lower harm, that shows we need more gun control. UBC fits best in that sophist but effective argument. But that argument can be applied generally to most gun control by our opponents.

That said UBC is also a pretty good item on which to go for quid pro quo model that the other side is most flummoxed by, us saying: "OK, compromise means give take, lets have UBC but national reciprocity on carrying, like we have on driver's license."

 

[TDL]

I think so much of this depends on one thing: Georgia in about five weeks. If both seats in Georgia go Democratic than there is a plausible argument that will be made that something will need to be thrown under the bus. I dont agree that anything should be, but it is a plausible argument.

That’s exactly my point. As much as I refuse to admire the man, if Mitch McConnell remains the senate leader this question is moot until the next election. We won’t have to discuss what to offer as a sacrificial lamb when gun control caucus starts warming up in unison, because the senate will be there to break up the chorus. If the senate goes in a direction more friendly to gun control, then all of our talk about not one more inch may be forced into pragmatic negotiation... no matter how much we wouldn’t like it.

We are all on the same page on this. Although if the Senate seats in Georgia change, and it looks more and more like they may, I think we wont be in pragmatic negotiation, but a LOT of trouble.

Whatever we thought of Harry Reid he was definitely from a time and place where elected official party alignment on gun control was more like 80:20 instead of today's 99.9:0.1. Chuck Schumer is an entirely different animal on the subject and like most people from NYC. Schumer is an effective brawler and it will be a brawl with 50 vs 51 in the Senate as it is likely we will see.

 

[Double K]

I run the skeet matches at the local gun club, I met a new guy last weekend from the middle east and we got into a conversation about what gun control might be coming.
He said something pretty significant, "americans are to soft and won't do anything about civil liberties or gun rights". I tend to agree.
Conservatives in general are a law abiding group and will go with whatever laws are passed.
This country is maturing and like most countries are moving towards the left, we had little lurch to the right with Trump but the media and big tech has successfully destroyed that effort.
Nothing will change unless people can't eat or stare at their phones.
Just a guess but to me it looks like we might have about another 10 years where we get to pretend were free and have real elections but it could be 4 years pretty easily then the globalists will be fully in charge.

 

[7.62 man]

The 2nd says "shall not be infringed" I think that explains my thinking.
I'm not going to swallow anything they will have to force it down & I will resist to my dyeing breath.

 

[44 AMP]

OK. I'm open to hearing a more likely scenario.

One thing that hugely matters is the precise language of the law that gets passed. Conflating a Universal Background Check, a registration requirement AND "safe storage" requirements all under the header of UBC is possible, but doesn't mean it automatically happens, it depends on what they actually write into the law.

One that I am personally aware of exists in Washington state. Passed during the Obama years, by voter initiative, (after having been shut down in the legislature at least 3 times) we have a UBC law. With a couple of stated exceptions, every firearm "transfer" must have a background check, through an FFL dealer. You, your gun, and the person it is to be transferred to must go to a dealer to have the check run.

Right now, the situation is the same as it was when they passed the law, people are voluntarily complying, (or not as they see fit). There IS no enforcement, because ALL the state law enforcement agencies (with the exception of King county, so they said) have REFUSED to enforce the law.

The state police have refused to enforce the law, until they get clarification of what is and is not a covered "transfer".

Its been several years now, and the requested clarification has not been provided. This puts us in a kind of Catch-22 situation. Without enforcement, no one is arrested, so no one is charged and tried. Until that happens, no one is "harmed" by the law and so there is no legal pressure to actually make the needed decisions on whether the law is valid, or not.

It is often brought up, we could (or would) be criminals, when the question becomes "prove to us you had a background check done on THAT gun1"

Another Catch-22 thing...because that is a question that should not be asked. We should never have to prove we obeyed the law, they need to prove we did NOT.

 

[Tom Servo]

That said UBC is also a pretty good item on which to go for quid pro quo model that the other side is most flummoxed by

They aren't flummoxed at all. Their idea of compromise is that we lose something, and they do nothing in return. It can only be a zero-sum game if our opponents can be dealt with in good faith.

And they most certainly cannot. When they shoved the Brady Act and AWB down our throats, the compromise was, "be thankful we didn't make it worse." The ink on the President's signature wasn't even dry when Feinstein and Schumer went on the evening news to tell us those laws were only "first steps" and they "didn't go far enough."

Sure, they might promise something in return, but it won't ever materialize. Assuming it will is a very bad idea. There are no trades to be made on the issue.

 

[Double K]

They've already said what they're going to do, tax/register the guns and magazines you already have, drive the manufacturerers out of business with lawsuits, and buy back programs for guns you can't afford to own or shoot.
It's an urban legend that they will come to your house and confiscate your guns, they've never done that large scale anywhere or anytime.
You'll turn your guns over to them without a single shot being fired.
Get used to the idea, you might want to sell them now while there still worth something.
I don't mean to sound completely negative it's just the hard truth.
If your of average means you'll still be able own a few guns, probably single shots and bolt guns in non-military calibers, the rest are history in liberal utopia. If your wealthy or a politician your likely be able to own anything you want but it'll be expensive.
It's not a question of if it's when.

 

[JERRYS.]

what's next, which one of you children do you give up?

silent majority, melon labe indeed. Ha!

 

[zukiphile]

That said UBC is also a pretty good item on which to go for quid pro quo model that the other side is most flummoxed by, us saying: "OK, compromise means give take, lets have UBC but national reciprocity on carrying, like we have on driver's license."

There can't be a quid pro quo in any durable sense with an opponent who doesn't recognize your right. The quid you give is gone forever (the GCA), and the quo is only yours until it is taken from you (normal capacity magazines, bump stocks or semi-automatic rifles). It's a different matter if the political winds blow your way, but then you don't want to offer the quid.

 

[HiBC]

One that I am personally aware of exists in Washington state. Passed during the Obama years, by voter initiative, (after having been shut down in the legislature at least 3 times) we have a UBC law. With a couple of stated exceptions, every firearm "transfer" must have a background check, through an FFL dealer. You, your gun, and the person it is to be transferred to must go to a dealer to have the check run.

Right now, the situation is the same as it was when they passed the law, people are voluntarily complying, (or not as they see fit). There IS no enforcement, because ALL the state law enforcement agencies (with the exception of King county, so they said) have REFUSED to enforce the law.

A couple of responses.

I don't sell many guns. I'd rather envision my Grandson with the Berretta 686 or my Granddaughter with the Mannlicher stocked double set triggered Anschutz 22.

But if/when I do sell a gun,I want documented separation of myself and anything that gun may be involved in future. And I want the Fed/State/ and FFL to say I am selling it to a person who can lawfully buy it.
I do it voluntarily to take care of myself. But I do not need or want the threat of prosecution if I give my Grandson a shotgun.

Bad laws that stay on he books due to discretionary non enforcement. No. Just No. We don't need the hidden threat.

Best way to take a bad law off the books is to vigorously enforce it on everyone

And this quid pro quo crap!! You cannot bargain away what you do not own.

You aren't trading YOUR Big Mac for Nancy Pelosi's filet of fish.

Its MY rights and my Grandchldren's rights, and while YOU may see the shiny bauble of your pet wish as a fair trade for what you will give up, its a SUCKER BET!! The BAIT has a hook in it. The cheese is on the trigger of the mouse trap.

The Government does not grant you rights or freedom. They only take away what SOME are FOOL enough to GIVE UP!!

 

[Aguila Blanca]

Bad laws that stay on he books due to discretionary non enforcement. No. Just No. We don't need the hidden threat.

Best way to take a bad law off the books is to vigorously enforce it on everyone

Agreed. And that means EVERYONE. Especially the politicians. NO exceptions.

 

[44 AMP]

Being applied to everyone was the one good feature about the Lautenberg law. While it screwed thousands (if not millions) of people it was nice to see a gun control law that did NOT have an exception for the police or even active duty military.

That law, literally, took hundreds, possibly thousands of cops off the streets. because they could no longer legally possess firearms, even in the course of their jobs.

Also the freaking thing was retroactive..(how did that ever manage to not be struck down???)

How is it we constantly elect people who pass laws based on their titles and NOT their content??

It seems to be getting worse, not better...

 

[ATN082268]

Also the freaking thing was retroactive..(how did that ever manage to not be struck down???)

I believe civil laws with a financial penalty can be retroactive but criminal laws with a loss of freedom (prison/jail) can not be retroactive. I'm sure a lawyer can confirm or deny this speculation

 

[44 AMP]

So, where do you put it when the law makes you a prohibited person (something previously only done by felony conviction) for a misdemeanor conviction of domestic violence (as if somehow that was something worse than non-domestic violence)??

And when that same law reaches back an unlimited amount of time 30,40,60, years or more for a MISDEMEANOR?????

OF course, its tough to argue against such a law, when they say a vote against it means you want wife beaters to have gun! (and yes, they did say just that, among other things)

Pointing out the flaws in the law just means you don't care about abused women...etc...

so they tell us, repeatedly...

 

[Aguila Blanca]

^^^ And to add insult to injury, on top of retroactively reclassifying decades-old misdemeanor convictions as disqualifying factors, they are also continually expanding the definition of what constitutes a relationship. To be honest, I'm rather glad that I'm an aging widower and not in the dating pool because, the way things are today, I'd be terrified to take any woman out on a date.

 

[Spats McGee]

They aren't flummoxed at all. Their idea of compromise is that we lose something, and they do nothing in return. It can only be a zero-sum game if our opponents can be dealt with in good faith.

And they most certainly cannot.....

This, this, a thousand times, this.

I don't negotiate with people who have demonstrated that they cannot be trusted.

 

[TDL]

They aren't flummoxed at all. Their idea of compromise is that we lose something, and they do nothing in return. It can only
be a zero-sum game if our opponents can be dealt with in good faith.
....
Sure, they might promise something in return, but it won't ever materialize. Assuming it will is a very bad idea. There are no trades to be made on the issue.

Oh they have been flummoxed on national UBC -- over and over. That is probably the the single largest divergence from public support and leglistaltive success in the last couple of decades.

I think we all agree the gun control lobby is not acting in good faith. Did I day they were? Nor that they will engage in actual compromise. But compromise is common on the hill, be it to actually compromise, or more often to inject language that guts or poison pills a leglistaltive effort.

We have certainly flummoxed them on UBC with quid pro quo (let's not forget with HR 8 that we drove them nuts with inclusion of illegal alien getting NICS hits via 4473 amendment), just as we have on other occasions with brute strength.

The flummoxing on that had to do with damage of an important relationship between Bloomberg's groups and the strategic coalitions they have made,

A lot of key vest pocket pro immigration groups went ballistic and withdrew support of HR8, because of the illegal alien compromise. EG "Immigrant Defense Project" and "United We Dream." The AOC "Squad" was only retained in supporting the "compromise" HR8 because Pelosi assured them McConnell would not even hear in it the Senate. That is a sound flummoxing.

For god's sakes they were CRYING in the House gallery:
https://twitter.com/AOC/status/1101834036249530368


I hope people understand I am not talking about sincere compromise, nor am I suggesting the other side is working in good faith. Rather about a strategy that works very often and has worked multiple times when we are on defense.

The professional staff in gun control groups, and I know several staffers, absolutely think they have been flummoxed over and over. They think the NRA 100% won the instant background check law construction, they think the NRA spun them like a top with grandfathering and sunsetting of AWB, they can't believe how little they got after Newton and Parkland. The outright consensus among those groups that the NRA outplayed them over and over at the national level is why a good part of their strategy and resources shifted to the state-houses.

As I said the entire thing depends on Georgia. Taking the two seats in Georgia will give one party three out of four (WH, HR, Senate). UBC very likely will not get thrown out, by even the current court and if they have three out of four they can, and I think will, pack the court giving them four out of four and all the gun control they want. At the very least what they can get past either Sens. Manchin or Collins which certainly does include UBC

If they do not take the Senate, they they also lose the court near tear since they cant pack it, each side two out of four.

So: If they take Georgia, then amendments we present as compromise, but are actually functionally quid pro quo or poison pills (either is ok) and are the rational response compared to stonewalling on the likely first potentially amendable* early legislation -- UBC.


This will not be Harry Reid running the Senate, but Chuck Schumer. He doesn't think you should be able to own a sling shot, comes forma place where you need to register pepper spray, and he is going to play severe hardball. Exactly how many blue dogish members are left in the Senate? Answer: one, Manchin. I'd pick Schumer in a fight against Manchin in minute.

*The earliest legislation may be will be the repeal of lawsuit protection and I don't think we can stop that. That is actually much more dangerous since a) you don't need court standing to provide money and legal assistance, or to fully fund, persons suing gun makers or sellers; and b) there are thousands of potential cases per year. And we all know chilling affect works with large corporations. But that will be harder to poison pill.

 

[TDL]

They aren't flummoxed at all. Their idea of compromise is that we lose something, and they do nothing in return. It can only be a zero-sum game if our opponents can be dealt with in good faith.

And they most certainly cannot.....

This, this, a thousand times, this.

I don't negotiate with people who have demonstrated that they cannot be trusted.

Respectfully I did not suggest either genuine compromise or that our opponents are acting in good faith -- nor that we should act in good faith ourselves. Only rubes do the latter here in DC. I am talking about diverting our opponents' momentum in worst case of full blue in Georgia senate seats.

I suggested -- when the alternatives are worse -- quid quo pros that function to either a) gut effect, or b) split off House or Senate votes in poison pill effect.

Lets not forget that while within the 94 omnibus crime bill the 1994 AWB survived by exactly one in one key Senate vote, two votes in another key Senate vote, only two votes in the house, and was singed into law by a president that only got 43% of the vote himself. But it always had alt least 51 in the Senate, so getting some language we wanted in there meant the final 56 votes was no more harmful than the stronger bills 51 votes. So we did not net lose by getting some compromise language we wanted.


We have often outright defeated legation that way. We have also on occasion made a mess of Bloomberg's coalition strategy of getting non gun control groups into his gun control coalition that way. With HR8 (a UBC) we actually got Congressional Black Caucus and the pro immigration groups fighting against each other over gun control when they are core parts of Bloomberg's strategy

So we have flummoxed them multiple times. On UBC specifically we have on several occasions.

I'm in DC and I worked on policy adovacy for a very long time. I've never worked on gun control but I sure know the history of the what was going on behind the scenes in the various efforts. Among my dozens of of former subordinates colleges I have several who have worked for Bloomberg's groups, before or after hiring them.

Being that it is DC, and everyone assumes that if you live here you are anti-2a, they are very open about discussing their strategy, tactics, relationships with the hill etc., and I have talked to lots of the professional staffers of the gun control groups in social settings.

1) They absolutely are incremental. For every win they immediately plan to go onto the next gun control law. The target is Australian regime when it comes to firearms. So yeah, that is the opposite of good faith. But literally nothing I wrote presumes good faith or negotiation with them. negotiation with members of congress is entirely different. they don't care about good faith, but can and are negotiated with all the time.

2) Poison pill amendments, which literally are the appearance of compromise, but in reality something else, work often in various areas of legislation, and absolutely have worked on several very close gun control fights (several iterations of UBC).

Again everything depends on Georgia. If it goes blue for Senate seats, and one is blue leading and one is blue/red dead heat, short term can see the a very large part of the gun control wish list go through. I think we will also see court packing which is a mid and long term nightmare that we know will mean upholding of national and state gun control and likely a major trimming of Heller.

If Georgia doesn't go blue it is a different ball game. My position is based on the hypothetical of it going blue.

 

[TDL]

And to add insult to injury, on top of retroactively reclassifying decades-old misdemeanor convictions as disqualifying factors

Oh there is much more than that, more of what is in some states' red flag, as well as terrorism watch list and more. You can expect continual attempts at marching in of disqualifiers. Including disqualifiers where probative burden is not a jury of your peers, not beyond a reasonable doubt, not normal evidentiary/exclusion rules or not arising from a whole suite of civil liberty protections

hate crime for example is an easy one to envisage. And while there are some nasty hate crimes by some very reprehensible characters, there are also lots of crimes classified as hate crimes and reported by various jurisdictions, as hate crimes, where that aspect of the crime is marginal to not credible at all.

A number of states' red flag domestic violence disqualifier is presence of protection order is problematic with UBC as well. I think all people of good will want there to be low thresholds for a battered woman to get a protection order so the batterers stays away. Low threshold of harm to the accused ("don't call her or go to her house") and low threshold to obtain that order, But as we see those orders being used for other purposes, even as matter of course negotiating ploys in divorce, custody or domestic financial settlement -- the low thresholds to get the order is a major problem. And that could be expanded because people dont understand the tradeoff, history and potential for abuse of prcotive orders.

Same with terrorism watch list. Even when used for what it was intended the terrorisms watchlist is full of civil liberties problems. If we expand it to for what it was not intended -- stripping of an explicit civil liberty-- it is a nightmare. But it is a great talking point for the other side: "they want terrorist's to have easy access to guns." That would be politically easy to get into a UBC. Although that is one issue where ACLU would likely join us in higher court milieu that could better understand why it is a mistake.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Just what are you trying to enforce??

The UBC.

The genius of the UBC is that the mere legal requirement of a UBC doesn't logically require a registry, but the argument against it that explains why it doesn't work simultaneously argues for its expansion into a registry.

This. The UBC (and the antis know this) can't work without a registry. That is, it can't be enforced.