James Brady

[vincewarde]

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.

I think you missed my point.  If they are not willing to give us something tangible, then the bill doesn't pass.  If they refuse to recognize that we can stop any bill they put forth and that things have changed, then nothing changes.  You are right that the other side has, in the past, given up little to nothing - however, things are different now. 

I have been a gun owner since before 1968 - so I understand where you are coming from.  I respectfully submit that you are not recognizing how strong we are right now.  We have NEVER BEEN STRONGER.  For the first time ever, after a bunch of high profile shootings, the other side got nothing.  The only question is: How will we use that strength?

One option is to simply play defense.  Just oppose every bill the antis put forth and hope we can always stop them.  That is an option.  The problem with it is if another Newtown happens when the Dems have both houses and the presidency, they will pass their own "background check bill" with TONS of horrible provisions.

Another option is something like I laid out:

1) A bill that is a net gain for gun rights.  If we have both houses, we control the amendments and we may sure it's a net gain.  This would be our bill,

2) A bill that takes away the ONLY ISSUE that has strong support.  Even if they gain majorities in both houses they are not going to be able to call a registration bill a "background check" bill.  That makes it very hard for them to get what they want.

3) A bill that has criminal sanctions for creating a registry and other gun control done by "executive action" with any state AG able to prosecute.

4) The antis will be in a difficult position.  Should they oppose, it will be difficult for them to bring up the issue again.  Likely, after trying unsuccessfully to modify the bill, at least some will support it.  We cause a split in their ranks.

5) If it lands on Obama's desk, we win either way.  If he signs it, we win.  If he vetoes it, we also win.  We can make it clear that he could have had background checks, but turned them down.

6) Even if they push for background checks again, the starting point would be our bill.  This would be a good thing.

7) The pro-gun provisions would be sweeping. 

Federal preemption of all gun laws controlling purchase and possession would invalidate hundreds of anti gun rights laws that affect a huge portion of our population.  I think this is doable.  The antis are always saying that these state laws don't work because federal laws are lacking.  Fine - we will give you expanded background checks in exchanged for laws you admit do not work.

Universal CCW reciprocity would effectively mandate shall issue nation wide.  This is also huge.

Other changes could be made to federal laws - like getting rid of the $200.00 fee on suppressors.   FOPA could also be strengthened.

Again, THIS WOULD BE OUR BILL.  We write it - they don't.   We would be using our strength to both preempt their best argument and push back many current laws.   While good people can and do disagree, I think that this would be the best uses of our current strength.

[vincewarde]

Yet those like Vince are willing to give up "just a little more".
When do you say enough, STOP!

I'm not willing to support any bill that is not a significant net gain for gun rights.  I'm absolutely not advocating that we simply "give a little bit more". I am suggesting that we give a bit on background checks in exchange for a NET GAIN FOR GUN RIGHTS.  I'm talking about rolling back a lot of gun laws - or we kill the bill.

Let me ask a question: Is there anything you would accept in exchange for expanded checks as outlined in my proposal?  There are TONS of local, state and federal gun laws out there.  If the worst of them were to go away and a ton of new gun rights provisions were to be written into federal law, in exchange for expanded background checks that still left you free to sell to anyone without a check - would that not be a massive net win for us?

I for one, am willing to look at the whole bill - what we gain and what we concede. I don't know a single pro-gun rights legal scholar who believes that NICS checks violate the 2nd Amendment.  That means it is strictly a political issue.  What would have happened if Newtown has happened in 2011?  We would have a horrible bill rammed through under the label of background checks.  As long as that issue is still out there, we are vulnerable to it.  Pass our own version of expanded background checks and it's off the table.  The antis now have to argue issues where they have very little support.

Frankly, I think the fact that Alan Gura - who is certainly pro-gun rights - takes this position speaks volumes.

[Hazcat]

"It would not be a crime to transfer a firearm to a non-prohibited person face to face, or by any other method."

It already is!  Why don't you read and learn the law before opening your stupid pie hole!

How about if I sell a car to a convicted DUI then he kills someone while drunk driving?

"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."

So you want to add 15 to 20 % to a $300 sale!

Also the gun dealer now OWNS the gun while on his books.  He has no obligation to sell it for what the buyer is willing to pay.  You will get your money but the dealer may decide he can sell it for more so the buyer is screwed.

Sorry but I am over dealing with imbeciles like you, Vince that believe in that "common sense gun regulations" BS.

I am NOT NICE when someone wants to "compromise" MY UNALIENABLE RIGHTS!


SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!


MOLON LABE ( if you have the balls!)

[kmitch200]

There's a couple of points in a couple of posts I would like to address...

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.

 
I think "most non-gun people" couldn't care less what the CCW laws are. Guns are icky and it's not on their radar.
Ask a bunch of soccer moms in Boston, Newark, Chicago, New York City and San Francisco if I should be able to walk around their kids armed because of my AZ CCW and I think you'll find it's closer to "No freaking way!" than "Oh yeah, no problem." 

Let me ask a question: Is there anything you would accept in exchange for expanded checks as outlined in my proposal? There are TONS of local, state and federal gun laws out there.  If the worst of them were to go away and a ton of new gun rights provisions were to be written into federal law, in exchange for expanded background checks that still left you free to sell to anyone without a check - would that not be a massive net win for us?

First, gun rights don't have to be written into federal law. Do you think your rights are/were granted by the government??
Someone already forbid the govt. from screwing with our rights and that was ratified back in 1789. 
Second, without UNIVERSAL background checks, the antis aren't interested.
It would leave un-nannied too much of what we have now.....freedom.
You want dishonest weasels to write a massive pile of federal scat so I can sell, give or trade a gun privately w/o a check?
Big F'n Deal. I can do that now. 

Pass our own version of expanded background checks and it's off the table.

You don't seem to understand....

NOTHING - ABSOLUTELY NOTHING IS OFF THE TABLE AS LONG AS CITIZENS STILL OWN GUNS AND WON'T BE UNTIL ALL GUNS IN PRIVATE HANDS ARE OUTLAWED!!! 
THAT IS THEIR STATED GOAL AND WE WOULD BE FOOLS TO FORGET THAT!
TO THINK YOU CAN REASON WITH OR PLACATE SOMEONE WHO WANTS YOUR NECK UNDER THEIR BOOT IS A FOOLS ERRAND.

I respect Alan Gura and the amount of courtroom experience he brings to the table and glad he's won some great court cases but anymore I lean towards that noted gun rights scholar - - -
Ted Nugent,

"f..k 'em!" 

[MikeBjerum]

I agree with your assessment of our 2nd Amendment rights.  However, the 2nd Amendment means what SCOTUS says it means. 

Do you understand what the initials BS stand for?

The Supreme Court has become nothing but a political committee.  They are so busy looking at case law and rewriting things that their rulings seldom reflect even the modern definition of words and phrases from our constitution.

I'm sorry to tell you this, but you are too willing to give away the store for me to begin to pick apart each of your points.  I will leave you with my full support of Alf's proposal, and add my statement that it is nobody's business what, what type, or how many firearms or arms I choose to purchase and use.

[Sponsor]

[PegLeg45]

Do you understand what the initials BS stand for?

The Supreme Court has become nothing but a political committee.  They are so busy looking at case law and rewriting things that their rulings seldom reflect even the modern definition of words and phrases from our constitution.

I'm sorry to tell you this, but you are too willing to give away the store for me to begin to pick apart each of your points.  I will leave you with my full support of Alf's proposal, and add my statement that it is nobody's business what, what type, or how many firearms or arms I choose to purchase and use.

All that reading on my little Kindle screen, preparing to have to laboriously type a response, and you covered it for me.

Thanks. M58.



The 2nd Amendment means just what it says.....in plain English.
After two hundred plus years, anyone who wants to re-interpret its meaning should not be allowed to sit a judicial bench.

[vincewarde]

"It would not be a crime to transfer a firearm to a non-prohibited person face to face, or by any other method."

It already is!  Why don't you read and learn the law before opening your stupid pie hole!

Actually I am quite aware of current law.  Allowing sales other than in state face to face would be one of the many pro-gun rights changes to FEDERAL law.

"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."

So you want to add 15 to 20 % to a $300 sale!

This fee would not apply to dealer sales - it would be the maximum that a dealer could charge for doing a NICS check on a private sale.

Also the gun dealer now OWNS the gun while on his books.  He has no obligation to sell it for what the buyer is willing to pay.  You will get your money but the dealer may decide he can sell it for more so the buyer is screwed.

Really - That's interesting because there are already many states that require dealers to do NICS checks on private sales and require them on some or all private sales.  Dealers have guns on their books all the time that they DO NOT OWN.  Consignment sales are but one example as are guns left of servicing.  If this is the best argument up can come up with, it's not convincing.

Sorry but I am over dealing with imbeciles like you, Vince that believe in that "common sense gun regulations" BS.

I am NOT NICE when someone wants to "compromise" MY UNALIENABLE RIGHTS!

I will ignore the name calling and simply point out that NOT ONE pro-gun rights legal scholar believes that a NICS check is an infringement on the 2nd Amendment right.  I stay up on this stuff as much as I can, and I don't know of any - if someone does PLEASE correct me.  I really want to know.

In fact, Heller makes it clear that government may take steps to keep the mentally ill and felons from owning or possessing firearms.  There is no constitutional barrier to expanding NICS check to all sales (although my proposal would not do that).

So, we can go with your approach - and hope that in the future a Democrat majority doesn't put a background check bill written by Bloomberg on the desk of an anti-gun rights president - OR - we can write our own bill and remove the issue without all the "flypaper provisions".   That Alan Gura's position, and I agree with him.

[vincewarde]

There's a couple of points in a couple of posts I would like to address...
 
I think "most non-gun people" couldn't care less what the CCW laws are. Guns are icky and it's not on their radar.

That's exactly where you are wrong.  It is the people who are not "gun people" who will decide what kind of gun laws we live with.  Many of them care about cases like the Pennsylvania woman who New Jersey is trying to throw into jail for crossing the state line with her carry gun.  That gets their attention, because they view it as unjust.  It also doesn't make sense to them.  Unfortunately many of these same people also want "universal background checks" because that also makes sense to them.

 

First, gun rights don't have to be written into federal law. Do you think your rights are/were granted by the government??
Someone already forbid the govt. from screwing with our rights and that was ratified back in 1789. 

Unfortunately, you and I do not get to decide what the 2nd Amendment means - SCOTUS does.  It was fear of an adverse ruling from SCOTUS that keep the NRA from bringing any 2nd Amendment cases to the high court.  Now we have had several rulings that are good - but none of them even suggest that a NICS check is an infringement.   That's their view, and sadly it's the only one that counts when it comes to our 2nd Amendment rights.

Second, without UNIVERSAL background checks, the antis aren't interested.
It would leave un-nannied too much of what we have now.....freedom.

Well, guess what?  They already agreed to a background check bill that wasn't universal.  The final version for the Senate bill exempted family transfers.

You want dishonest weasels to write a massive pile of federal scat so I can sell, give or trade a gun privately w/o a check?

Nope, I want to roll back a huge number of gun laws we all hate and preempt the other side's best issue - in a way that has little affect upon all of us.

NOTHING - ABSOLUTELY NOTHING IS OFF THE TABLE AS LONG AS CITIZENS STILL OWN GUNS AND WON'T BE UNTIL ALL GUNS IN PRIVATE HANDS ARE OUTLAWED!!! 
THAT IS THEIR STATED GOAL AND WE WOULD BE FOOLS TO FORGET THAT!
TO THINK YOU CAN REASON WITH OR PLACATE SOMEONE WHO WANTS YOUR NECK UNDER THEIR BOOT IS A FOOLS ERRAND.

I believe that your assessment is true of most gun control organizations - certainly Bloomberg's.  However, the number of hard core gun control advocates is very small.  They depend upon gaining support from non-gun owners.  That's why they have to lie to even get their bills considered.  Right now, their favorite tactic is to write a horrible bill and label it "Background Checks" in order to sell it.  Wy do they do this?  Simple - background checks are the ONLY issue that gains them enough support to win.  The non-gun owning public doesn't support registration - so they will write a registration bill and call it "background checks".

I respect Alan Gura and the amount of courtroom experience he brings to the table and glad he's won some great court cases but anymore I lean towards that noted gun rights scholar - - - Ted Nugent,
"f..k 'em!"

I love "Uncle Ted" - but he isn't a legal scholar.  I'm not either, and I assume you are not.  I too respect Gura - and I only hope that he is wrong in his prediction that if we do not write our own background check bill, eventually the other side will get one passed - because I don't think we are going  to follow his advice.

[vincewarde]

Do you understand what the initials BS stand for?

The Supreme Court has become nothing but a political committee.  They are so busy looking at case law and rewriting things that their rulings seldom reflect even the modern definition of words and phrases from our constitution.

That is something that we wholehearted agree upon!  IMHO we have five justices who think that the Constitution should at least be consulted before deciding how to rule and we have four justices who flat out do not care what the Constitution says.  Indeed, if we had a Supreme Court that cared about original intent and what the text actually says, we would not be having this discussion because most of our current gun laws would have been struck down long ago.

Sadly, the reality - as you outlined - is very different.  One change on the court and we could see Heller reversed.  That's why having support outside the gun owning community is so critical.  We may need to over rule a future adverse ruling on the 2nd Amendment by passing a constitutional amendment to restore it.

[vincewarde]

All that reading on my little Kindle screen, preparing to have to laboriously type a response, and you covered it for me.

Thanks. M58.

The 2nd Amendment means just what it says.....in plain English.
After two hundred plus years, anyone who wants to re-interpret its meaning should not be allowed to sit a judicial bench.

I agree - but sadly, his assessment is correct.