Is this a good compromise?

[abean4187]

I normally opposed universal background checks but I would probably support a package saying that if we gave them UBCs, they would give us a complete ban on “Assault Weapon” Bans and magazine bans and make all states “Shall Issue” for CCW.

I wonder what the majority of congresspeople would say to such a proposal if it got some steam among the population.

http://www.guns.com/2013/10/04/ending-war-gun-control-5-easy-steps-video/

 

[Mr H]

Clarify please... I think you may have mis-written what you intended??

 

[Bertfish]

I normally opposed universal background checks but I would probably support a package saying that if we gave them UBCs they would give us a complete ban (State and federal) on “Assault weapons” and magazine bans. Along with making all states “Shall Issue” for CCW.

I wonder what the majority of congresspeople would say to such a proposal if it got some steam among the population.

http://www.guns.com/2013/10/04/ending-war-gun-control-5-easy-steps-video/

Clarification require. You want a ban on Assault weapon/magazine bans as well as guaranteed Shall issue in exchange for universal background checks?

Be cautious. Last time there was such "compromise" we got the FOPA which, while helping many gun owners, royally screwed the Class III community.

The anti-gun crowd does not want compromise, they demand nothing less than total victory and we should be careful to be any less vehement in our demands.

 

[ThatGuy179]

Clarify please... I think you may have mis-written what you intended??

This ^^^. What you have written sounds like we get nothing. Thats nit a good compromise.

 

[Robert]

??, but the answer is still NO.

 

[Ghostrider1]

I think what he wrote is Background Checks for a ban on bans, I guess a sort of "national premption", and shall issue.

 

[Watdahec]

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!
Compromise not required.

 

[rseymorejr]

I think he is saying we give in on universal background checks and they promise no magazine or semi-auto bans plus we get 50 state shall issue.

That would be OK except the other side can absolutely not be trusted to live up to it. It's in their nature to require more and more control, they can't help it.

 

[danb]

I normally opposed universal background checks but I would probably support a package saying that if we gave them UBCs they would give us a complete ban (State and federal) on “Assault weapons” and magazine bans. Along with making all states “Shall Issue” for CCW.

I wonder what the majority of congresspeople would say to such a proposal if it got some steam among the population.

http://www.guns.com/2013/10/04/ending-war-gun-control-5-easy-steps-video/

what do you mean "give us a complete ban"? Do you mean that federal legislation that repeals the AWB in NY, MD, CA, etc? What's to stop them from going back to the well 4 years from now anyway?

Second, maryland just released two years worth of guns, mostly on peoples word and signature on a few forms, without the MSP doing background checks. There is no crime wave, no homicide wave, no rash of accidental shootings or mass murder. background checks are pointless because drug dealers do not fill out forms, and the antis know it. When drug dealers agree to fill out 77r for their guns, then we might actually get "universal" background checks.

 

[Ganegrei]

Nope. They would use the deal to get the UBC's, then renenge on their side of the deal and start banning, taking their "victors" in the UBC question as a mandate to go further.

Also, Maryland would never go along with a national shall issue law. They would sandbag it, restrict it, etc.

 

[Kman]

Compromising on Constitutional rights does not fly.

And, the only successful compromise is when you trust the opposition you are capitulating to. I do not trust the opposition to honor a compromise. Furthermore, if we cave to background checks, the opposition would rig the standards for gun ownership to be nearly impossible. Every possible infraction against you would be grounds to not approve.

 

[abean4187]

Clarify please... I think you may have mis-written what you intended??

What I am saying is I would be willing to accept a new law if that new law said that universal background checks are legal BUT the law also must state that assault weapon bans are illegal and that magazine bans are illegal (At both the federal and state level). The new law also must state that every state be “shall issue” for CCW.

The article I posted goes into better detail than what I said. I just read it last night and thought it was an interesting idea. Was wondering what everyone else thought about it.

 

[MDFF2008]

In theory, it has potential. The problem is that the anti's would not respect it. You can't have a meaningful conversation about reasonable limits when the people your talking to have 1 goal; banning all guns.

 

[jrumann59]

UBCs are not needed. There is a system in place that is not properly populated with information from every state. the NICS system seems to have no mandate on how much info needs to be submitted by states. If the gov't mandated 100% reporting of all pertinent info to NICS there would be no need for a UBC. They just like using UBC in conjunction with closing, "the gunshow loophole."

 

[2AHokie]

No. Universal anything = universal registration = open door to federal confiscation whenever the winds shift.

It might be tempting for us in MD who are already subject to registration of many items (we really wouldn't be giving up much and would get CCW and a 281 repeal), but it would not be a good deal for any state that still respects freedom in the short term or any of us in the long term.

 

[Brooklyn]

NO. They are only compromising because they are losing. After they loose we can compromise.

Take a good look at FOPA and how it is honored NO NO NO.

and F..K NO.

NO MORE COMPROMISE with an enemy. They are the enemy -- the disrespect for the intent of FOPA proves it.

NO NO and F..k NO. COPY ?

 

[Mr H]

What I am saying is I would be willing to accept a new law if that new law said that universal background checks are legal BUT the law also must state that assault weapon bans are illegal and that magazine bans are illegal (At both the federal and state level). The new law also must state that every state be “shall issue” for CCW.

The article I posted goes into better detail than what I said. I just read it last night and thought it was an interesting idea. Was wondering what everyone else thought about it.

I thought that's where you were headed, but understand that we are up against anti-gun idealogues, who will stop at nothing to chip away at the Right.

They're after all of them in one way or another, but 2A in particular.

Incrementalism. Give them an inch, and they'll want the whole thing.

 

[Brooklyn]

What I am saying is I would be willing to accept a new law if that new law said that universal background checks are legal BUT the law also must state that assault weapon bans are illegal and that magazine bans are illegal (At both the federal and state level). The new law also must state that every state be “shall issue” for CCW.

The article I posted goes into better detail than what I said. I just read it last night and thought it was an interesting idea. Was wondering what everyone else thought about it.

NO NO and F..k no.

The court is the only element of government that can ban " bans". We can not rely on the political process to protect our rights. Now we try court, If that fails Constitutional Convention --- that will not fail. NY may need to stand it own Militia having been expelled from the union , but I am ok with that. Ditto CA, MD, NJ ... any one else that can't read ....

Did I mention NO COMPROMISE.

 

[ShallNotInfringe]

I thought that's where you were headed, but understand that we are up against anti-gun idealogues, who will stop at nothing to chip away at the Right.

They're after all of them in one way or another, but 2A in particular.

Incrementalism. Give them an inch, and they'll want the whole thing.

Isn't it funny how the folks that wrote the constitution knew the exact word to characterize their tactics, 222 years ago.

Infringe: in·fringe [ in frínj ]
1. disobey or disregard something: to fail to obey a law or regulation or observe the terms of an agreement
2. encroach on somebody's rights or property: to take over land, rights, privileges, or activities that belong to somebody else, especially in a minor or gradual way
Synonyms: encroach on, intrude on, interfere with, impinge on, trespass, invade, overstep

No UBC. The government has no right to know how We the People exercise our rights. It's their job to ensure we can. It's our job to make sure they don't infringe.

 

[danb]

the link to the underlying article no longer works by the way.