James Brady

[MikeBjerum]

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.

They aren't giving us anything!  According to our founding documents these are rights given us by our Creator that are protected by our Constitution.  The antis are just keeping their grubby hands off these rights, and that is not GIVING us anything.

[MikeBjerum]

How do you propose to open the NICS to private individuals?  Additionally would you want to give your SSN and other private info to someone?

If you mean all transfers must involve a FFL dealer to facilitate the transfer that is a non-starter.

The nice thing about NICS is that they do not require your SSN.  Just leave it blank.  However, that does not make it ok to mess with law abiding citizens going about their daily lives.

[alfsauve]

Problem is so many people are going the wrong way.  Here's my idea of compromise.   

My position is:
Disband the BATFE and repeal all the laws that it enforces.
REPEAL 1934 NFA
REPEAL 1938 FFA
REPEAL 1968 GCA
REPEAL 1990 CCA
REPEAL 1994 BHVPA
REPEAL all restrictions on firearm and blade carry.

Okay, NOW I'm ready to compromise.  Maybe I'll give you parts of the 1994 BHVPA (for now).

[Rastus]

Sweet....we give up something tangible and they give up nothing. 

Sorry Vince I know you mean well but no thanks.  I'm not mad and flaming you but we're never going to agree on this.

I've seen compromise where one side gives up something tangible and the other side gives up nothing.  Check out Al's list...what did the anti's give up?  What did we give up?  Who won?  It was capitulation not compromise.

Capitulation is not compromise and both have the stench of death attached to them.  I know you are emotionally invested here but let it die down and rethink it.

[tombogan03884]

On gun rights compromise means giving up less of something that we have no right to surrender in order to prevent the anti American conspiracy from taking even more of our culture from us.
Our education system has descended to the level of communist indoctrination,
Our govt owes more than the entire value of the US,
2/3 of the population draw their income from the taxpayers pocket,
You can not walk down the street with out being under surveillance,
The only religion that is not actively suppressed is the one that hates everything America stands for,
The "free" media is nothing but a propaganda organ of the socialists.
Law enforcement can seize your property for minor offenses and even if you are found innocent it is not returned,
The list goes on but I'm writing off the top of my head.
Yet those like Vince are willing to give up "just a little more".
When do you say enough, STOP!
If not now, when ?
When the Govt inspectors start jailing people for crapping at 8:30 instead of the specified 8:00 ?
Would that be enough infringement for you to FINALLY understand WHY there is a 2nd Amendment, the one you suggest a "little" compromise on ?


(Yes, as a matter of fact, I DID get more PO'd as I thought about it. I have GOT to find the ambition and get my head into the place where I can write my book !!!    )

[Sponsor]

[vincewarde]

How do you propose to open the NICS to private individuals?  Additionally would you want to give your SSN and other private info to someone?

If you mean all transfers must involve a FFL dealer to facilitate the transfer that is a non-starter.

01 FFLs would be required to process NICS checks for a reasonable set fee ($15.00-20.00).  They would log it in their bound book and the buyer would complete a 4473 form.

No one would be REQUIRED to go through an FFL - it would be completely optional.  It would not be a crime to transfer a firearm to a non-prohibited person face to face, or by any other method.

What would be a crime is to knowingly or unknowingly transfer a firearm to a prohibited person.  However, any transfer done through an FFL would be completely exempt from prosecution.  This would have the effect of motivating people to do the transfer through an FFL unless they are 100% sure the person is not prohibited.   Even if you are 100% sure, it would be wise to look at their driver's license and write up a bill of sale signed by both parties.

So, let's say that ATF finds a gun in the hands of a felon that you bought from a dealer and later sold.  If you did the transfer through a dealer, you could show them a receipt for the NICS check or even just give them the name of the FFL.  They check his or her bound book and when they find the transfer documented there, they continue the trace and you are off the hook.  If you sold the gun to a non-prohibited person, you could give them that person's name and possibly show them the bill of sale.

So, again going through an FFL would not be required - but in many circumstances it would be foolish to to do so.  Now, in reality, how much would this change for the average, responsible gun owner?  I'm certainly not going to sell a gun without a NICS check to anyone who I am not absolutely positive is not a prohibited person - no matter what the law is.  I think most of us here would adhere to the same policy.  In fact, by making the NICS check available to private sellers (through 01 FFLs), it would enable us to sell to complete strangers with confidence and legal protection.

[vincewarde]

Background checks are nothing but ground work for registration, registration ALWAYS leads to confiscation.

I agree that many of those advocating for expanded background checks would like to use it to create a registration system.  I also agree with the principle that registration frequently leads to confiscation.

However, Alan Gura counters - and I agree - that this is EXACTLY why we should be the ones to write the bill.  Let's think about how we could make it virtually impossible for someone to use the NICS system to create a registry.

1) First of all, NICS does not contain any firearms description, nor even the number of firearms purchased.  That info is retained by the FFL in their files.  Frankly, I cannot think of a safer place for them to be.  Remember the uproar when ATF tried to copy the whole bound books of a few dealers in Alaska?  Keeping firearms purchase records at the FFL, with ATF only able to look at them during inspections or while doing a trace for a criminal investigation is very good security.

2) What they can do with the NICS system is create a database of gun owners.  Right now this is likely illegal under the gun registry ban - but there is no penalty for doing so.  We need to make this a felony with lots of jail time - say 15 years minimum.  We also need to write the law so that any state AG can prosecute.  We also need to be very sure the NICS data on approved purchases is being destroyed as required by making failure to do so a felony, also able to be prosecuted by any state AG.  Likewise, the copying of 4473 forms or bound books, outside of a criminal investigation supported by warrants, would also be a felony.  Lastly, we need to secure the records of closed FFLs by transferring them to an industry run organization (likely the NSSF), with access controlled by the same laws that govern open FFLs.  This would include all of the records currently possessed by ATF.

We won the battle on background checks last time - but I'm not willing to gamble that we will always be able to do so.  If the other side writes the bill, it will not include the above safeguards - and will likely be used to create a registry.   The devil is ALWAYS in the details.....

[vincewarde]

They aren't giving us anything!  According to our founding documents these are rights given us by our Creator that are protected by our Constitution.  The antis are just keeping their grubby hands off these rights, and that is not GIVING us anything.

I agree with your assessment of our 2nd Amendment rights.  However, the 2nd Amendment means what SCOTUS says it means.  That is the practical reality.  Assuming that we see no changes on the court, we have a lot of protection - but even under Heller, background checks would likely be found to be constitutional - since Heller makes it clear that prohibited persons can be forbidden firearms.

Now I ***HOPE*** that when a carry case gets to the court, we get not just a positive ruling - but a ruling that affirms that the 2nd Amendment is to be accorded strict scrutiny.  That may very well make registration unconstitutional, at least for long guns.  However, even then background checks would likely be constitutional PROVIDED there are strong safeguards in place.

[vincewarde]

The nice thing about NICS is that they do not require your SSN.  Just leave it blank.  However, that does not make it ok to mess with law abiding citizens going about their daily lives.

And I would not change that.

[vincewarde]

Problem is so many people are going the wrong way.  Here's my idea of compromise.   

My position is:
Disband the BATFE and repeal all the laws that it enforces.
REPEAL 1934 NFA
REPEAL 1938 FFA
REPEAL 1968 GCA
REPEAL 1990 CCA
REPEAL 1994 BHVPA
REPEAL all restrictions on firearm and blade carry.

Okay, NOW I'm ready to compromise.  Maybe I'll give you parts of the 1994 BHVPA (for now).

I think that some of the provisions in these laws could be changed (I would go for making suppressors easier to own), but politically getting rid of all of them would be a bridge too far.