Would You Compromise?

[redlevel]

I'm against universal background checks. Those problems have already been discussed.
I am also against any type of National Concealed Carry Permit. Do you really want the Federal Government / Congress deciding who can or can't have a permit. Do you really want them making the rules? Them setting the standards?
What we want is National CCW Reciprocity. Wherein all states are required to honor all other states CCW permits in the same way they honor all other state's driver's licenses. This way the States still have control over the permits. Not the Feds.

I was wondering if I was the onliest one, as we used to say . . . .

National Concealed Carry might sound like a good idea if you live in California, Maryland, NJ, NY, or a state like that. I would just bet, though, that any NCC law would be less "carry friendly" than Georgia's current law. Same could be said about other states, too. Naw Suh, I don't want no Federal entity deciding whether I meet their requirements.

I always see lots of bad talk about compromise. The only governmental system I know of where compromise doesn't exist by necessity is a dictatorship. In an elective representative government, compromise is a fact of life. Just sayin'.

 

[Onomea]

I am not sure that I understood the question properly....

Is the question "would you be willing to undergo a background check in order to get a nationally recognized CCW permit?" If that is the question, yes, I would.

All my guns are registered as my US home is Hawaii, which requires a "permit to acquire" and a two week waiting period... I have an out of state Utah CCW permit that required a background check. Can't use it in Hawaii, though.

I like Hawaii, but not its gun laws...

 

[baldeagle8888]

COMPROMISE, Just who or what is being ask to compromise.
It would seem to me that the Pro Gun Position is stating, we'll not going to permit the government from infringing on the 2nd amendment where as the Anti-Gun position is "we'll going to eliminate and/or restrict and/or reduce. When the word compromise is used, it would seem like anything compromised by the Pro Gun Side is losing a right and any compromise by the Anti Gun Side is nothing more then not taking away as many rights or to the extreme that they desire.

baldeagle8888

 

[11B Lifer]

Compromise God given right

No. I do agree that all politicians should be checked.
No. I will not condone any federal check on anything.
I have witnessed the abuses by the Feds
You compromise YOUR rights-
Leave mine alone.

 

[revho]

I do no not want a compromise.

No.

 

[Fishslayer]

Universal background checks are the camel's nose under the tent.

He's head & shoulders inside in Kalifornistan...

I say no.

 

[Alnamvet68]

Universal background checks equals diminishing state's rights which lead to national registration with an end resulting in confiscation...is there any part of this that's not clear fence riders?

 

[oldRoger]

For those of you in states which register firearms it may be a non-issue, but for the rest of us it is not.

This is prior restraint in a grand manner. No other perfectly legal sale requires the prior consent of the Federal Government. The fact that citizens of some states see fit to put up with this does not mean that the rest of us must.

A universal background check law cannot work without records.
If A sells a firearm to B, the only way that the government can determine that A performed the required background check is by maintaining a record. If B uses the firearm to commit some crime the firearm must be traceable back to the sale.
The only way that a trace of B's firearm can be useful is through a name and serial number record.

Since the vast majority of used firearm sales are legal and the firearms are not used in any crime, a bureaucracy must be maintained in order to keep the records of these sales which are of no interest to anyone.

Finally, are people so naive as to think that criminals will do a background check of the prospective buyers of their illegal weapons when transferring them to other criminals?

 

[setxn]

A preapproved card,permit or whatever to purchase a firearm that worked like a CHL permit here in Texas would not diminish any rights when purchasing a firearm.State issued and recognized by all states. Could plug some of the loopholes without federal involvement. Requirements would have to be constant or there would be the same problems as CHL reciprocity.

 

[quneur]

I've thought on this issue with these constraints:

A person who obtains a concealed license has to undergo a background check within their state. If their state has reciprocity with another state, the background check should also be honored by both states. Hence, purchasing a firearm should be available in both states without needing a FFL.

Both states would have to be shall issue states.

A persons concealed license would allow a firearm purchase without a NICS check even across state lines.

A person without a concealed license would have to follow the current system as it is now.


This proposal sounds reasonable at first glance but is unsustainable even if the system is perfect in its operation. Even if the federal government is not allow access to states information the fact that the state is keeping records is dangerous.

Fifty states would have to debate whether the information is publically accessible through the Freedom of Information Act vs the Privacy Act. Personal information of this type (registry) can not be gathered but demographic information can. But how small of an area can demographics be gathered? By county, city, block or street? Cross index this with public real estate records and you have a pretty accurate map of number of guns within a certain demographic area (and how many guns to confiscate?).

This issue is being exploited by private entities today as some states consider this public information. A few days ago, WA exemption committee (Sunshine Committee) discussed this very issue.

As long as these records are maintained, the federal authorities is certain to obtain these records, lawful or otherwise, for future registration. When this happens, confiscation is inevitable. There is no historical precedent where registration has led to anything else.

 

[Raider]

Let the other side compromise. I will not. Look at all the freedom we have lost and all the burdensome regulations we have to abide with ... alll through compromise. Enough is enough.

Charlie

 

[GF]

If you start one more thread like this I'll do it ...

GF

 

[ohiobuckeye]

No...It still puts you on the fed list as having at least one gun in your possession and greases the slippery slope to eventual confiscation.
"Compromise" on gun control is akin to this scenario.....You're walking down the street with 100 bucks in your pocket when accosted by an armed robber. You negotiate with him not to fight back in exchange for giving him half your money as a "compromise". How many robbers can you "compromise with before you have nothing left?
Regardless of what "compromise" is made with the current anti gun crowd, the next batch of anti gun fanatics waiting in line will demand another "compromise".

 

[setxn]

Here in Texas ownership of a firearm is not required to obtain a CHL,nor is any specific firearm tied to your CHL as in some states. But with this CHL a firearm can be purchased with no background check. I'm just brainstorming with this. As far as which houses to pick to get guns,around here just pick one and odds are very good that you will bingo. If someone is really worried don't show up in Houston for the NRA convention without a disguise because the facial recognition cameras may be watching. I don't type well enough to maintain a discussion like this so I'll just follow it unless a short comment pops up. Good Luck and Safe Shooting to all.

 

[Straightshooter2]

What we want is National CCW Reciprocity. Wherein all states are required to honor all other states CCW permits in the same way they honor all other state's driver's licenses. This way the States still have control over the permits. Not the Feds.

My fault in the way I worded it as I actually meant Reciprocity rather than a "Federal issue" permit. I should have thought about it a little more before I posted it. Now, I'll chime in with my thoughts. As I said in the original post, I am against the "Universal Background Check" for too many reasons to list. When I used the word "compromise" I meant it in it's original form, not as the word is used by politicians now. Compromise used to mean I'll give you something you want in exchange for you giving me something I want. We both win/lose in the situation. Now days compromise, as I think someone else pointed out, means I create a bill so onerous that even some of those on my side of the aisle aren't going to go for it. Then I "yield to pressure" and take out whatever I knew would never fly anyway to make the bill more reasonable. Then I accuse the other side of the aisle of being "unreasonable and unwilling to compromise" when what I actually mean is the other side of the aisle is unwilling to give in to what I want.

CW

 

[lonejacklarry]

Compromise? Nope. Any concession will be a lessening of current rights. Once you've compromised the "territory" is gone forever.

Compromise is usually brought up by the person(s) in a position of weakness.

Surrounded troops, for instance, are usually interested in a compromise of some sort. The persons holding the high ground are usually not as interested in compromise.

The federal gov't is operating from a position of weakness. I would opine that this is not the time to follow the Marquis of Queensberry rules and go to a neutral corner. No prisoners.

 

[bennettfam]

BG check only, OK. BUT...not if it includes gun registration. Check the person's background to ensure they can legally possess a gun, fine. But no reason to record any firearm serial numbers. Only then would I agree to the compromise.

 

[Old 44 Guy]

Compromise means giving up half your rights. Then they want to compromise again later. Go figure.

 

[WASATCH CHARLIE]

In Canada, we are required to submit to a background check to obtain a licence to purchase even a pellet gun that can shoot 500fps. even more hoops for handguns and AR type long guns. our republician(Consertive govt. has cancelled the requirement to register rifles and shotguns (With some exceptions). Do you think all agencies who have this info has destroyed it??? Was stopped at a roadside check /drinking-driving check. asked for driners licence. couple minutes later, officer asks, Any handguns in your truck tonight? NO I replied was not asked if I had had a drink. You have it good stateside, DON'T GIVE AN INCH. WC

 

[PA Reb]

Let's not forget, "we have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it."