Don't be fooled. Those pro-gun provisions were put in the bill to keep it from passing not because the antis want to give us anything. I don't like how "compromise" is played out in DC. I say never give in to anything they want to foist on us.
The hard core antis certainly do not want to give us anything - but once a politician becomes invested in a bill they really want it to pass. Furthermore, some of the antis are willing to give us something in return for something that they can label as a victory.
Now, should we support such bills? I think it's dumb not to consider it, while maintaining our skeptical view of the other side. By the time the final version of the last bill was put up for a vote, it could be argued that either way - we won. Defeat it, and we hand them a loss. Pass it, and it we don't have to report family transfers, we get teeth on FOPA, and the right to buy a gun in any state.
Now let me say that I know I'm going to get flamed, but I agree with Alan Gura (
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2oRWMxfTcfs ). Gura is certainly not a traitor to the gun rights movement - in fact he has been at the center of many of our recent legal victories. I think if Republicans take the Senate we should draft a background check bill of our own, attach a bunch of pro-gun rights provisions (all of the above - and national CCW reciprocity, and maybe federal preemption of most areas of gun law) and send it to Obama. Before you flame me, here's my reasoning:
1) Expanded background checks are the only gun control action that has wide support outside of the small number of anti-gun rights activists. If we remove that issue, they have almost no support - even in times when events favor them. They become much more marginalized than they are today.
2) One of the dangers in continuing to allow the antis to have this issue to bring up is that they can write some horrible laws and call it "background checks" - just look at Colorado and it's Bloomberg authored laws. If we write the law, we can do things like defining a transfer as transfer of ownership and making it a felony to uses the data to create a registry. We can control the other provisions and prevent them from sneaking in other gun control provisions from their wish list.
3) As I mentioned - we don't just pass a background check bill - we look for pro-gun rights provisions that the public supports. Like CCW reciprocity. Most "non-gun people" don't understand why a carry permit is not like a drivers license. Preemption of state laws would be more difficult, but might be possible - after all, the antis are always talking about how gun laws in restrictive states don't work because of gun laws in other states.
4) I think it's important to understand that the antis have a very small core, but they can influence a much larger group. They do that by painting gun rights advocates like us as a small group of unreasonable extremists. By taking the initiative, we can gain the support of most of this group and disprove the idea that we are "unreasonable".
5) I also have a creative way to implement expanded background checks.
a) Background checks would continue to be voluntary for private transfers - it would not be a crime to sell your guns without one, give them away without one or transfer to anyone - including people in other states (this would be new).
b) Anyone transferring a firearm to a prohibited person would be strictly criminally liable for such action. "I didn't know" would not be a defense.
c) Any transfer conducted through an FFL with a background check would be exempt from prosecution even if the person receiving the firearm is a prohibited person.
So - if I am transferring to my family or a close friend and I am positive they are not prohibited, I just give them the gun. If I don't know them, I probably would not want to transfer without a background check.
As far as allowing the ATF to fight "illegal dealers" or "illegal trafficking" or pushing prohibited persons into the illegal market - this law would be just as effective as requiring background checks on every transaction. It would be very hard for the antis to argue that mandatory checks would be any more effective than such a program. Should they oppose this law, the would have to admit that what they are really after is back door registration - not simply background checks. That alone would be a huge victory for us.
6) If we are really lucky, some of the gun control groups will sign on to the deal in an effort to look like they are doing something - while others will oppose. There is potential to divide our enemies.
7) The next time there is another Newtown, we will have preempted the one issue that they have majority support for. If we put such a bill on Obama's desk and he vetoes it, he will think long and hard about calling for background checks - because we can say, "We put that on your desk and you vetoed it." Even if there is a push, we will have much more control over the discussion. Like it or not, the discussion would begin with our bill. We can simply say, "We can send that bill up to you again TODAY."
So OK, I'm ready. Shoot this proposal full of holes. That's the way things get perfected.
MBTV
Forum Index
Help
Calendar
Contact Info
Register as a member
