Every compromise moves the liberal agenda ahead and is a loss to conservatives.
Liberals are perfectly happy to win a small compromise now and another one later on because eventually they attain their goal .
Posted on 04/28/2018 12:11:13 PM PDT by Simon Green
Jon Stokes has a post up at Politico this morning, A Gun Nut’s Guide to Gun Control That Works. He’s noted the post-Parkland climate that’s seen states like Vermont and Florida put new restrictions on firearms purchasing and ownership, as well as proposals to repeal the Second Amendment or outlaw all semi-auto firearms and is proposing a fix. A grand bargain that’s designed to satisfy both gun owners and gun controllers by getting each side to give up something.
His big idea: create a federal gun owner’s license that would enable anyone who goes through the process to possess semi-automatic firearms. Once you’re licensed, you no longer have to undergo a background check when you buy a gun. Private sales included. No matter where you live.
A federal license for all semi-automatic firearms would rest on two simple and well-defined concepts, one technical and one legal:
1) A “semi-automatic” firearm is one that fires a single round for each pull of the trigger, automatically reloading in between each shot until the ammo is depleted.
2) “Possession” is a legal concept from the drug war that implies that a person has a contraband item “on or about one’s person,” or has “control” over the item, perhaps by having it in a motor vehicle or in a home.
Because both of these things—“possession” and “semi-automatic weapons”—are easy to define, they’re easy to regulate.
Combine these two concepts with a thorough but reasonable vetting process, and you have the makings of a straightforward, effective system for keeping the most lethal class of weapons out of the hands of bad actors, while simultaneously lifting the burden of arbitrary weapon bans and federal red tape from law-abiding gun owners.
Don’t want to submit to federal licensing? Fine. You can still buy and possess bolt action rifles and revolvers, but would have to fill out a 4473 for each purchase. He’s a little fuzzy on the status of lever action rifles and pump shotguns, but swing with it for a minute.
If you weren’t a license holder, then simple possession of any semi-auto weapon would be a felony. Don’t have one on your person, or in your car or home. As for taking possession of the types of guns you could have without a license, then it’s universal background checks and FFL transfers for you—basically the status quo, in most states.
In exchange for this new regime, all states will have to drop their “feature-based” bans on guns like AR-15s, “high capacity” magazines and the like. In other words, If you live in Pennsylvania and drive across the Delaware with an AR or a 17-round magazine in your trunk, you won’t be risking a few years in jail. If you’re hired by a California-based company and need to relocate, you can take your AK and and your full capacity G17 with you.
What if you own semi-automatics now, but don’t want to go through federal licensing? Again, he’s fuzzy, though he throws out a possible three to five-year “grace period,” during which you could presumably sell or, uh, turn in your semi-auto guns (barring any unfortunate boating accidents, of course).
Gun controllers would give up their state and locally-based gun control laws. All legal firearms would be legal in all 50 states. But the anti-gun side would get, effectively, universal background checks. A full-blown, probably TSA-Pre-level check for the federal semi-auto license, and standard NICS checks on all firearms sales, including private sales, for non-licensed individuals.
Stokes leaves much left to be decided.
There are a lot of important details to be worked out, like the status of pump-action and lever-action guns, or the specific requirements for getting a license and keeping it current, or due process requirements for restoring a revoked license. Gun control advocates might want any gun that can fire without reloading included in the licensing regime (pump- and lever-action guns), and gun rights advocates might want current federal restrictions on suppressors and short-barreled rifles dropped. These types of issues could surely be ironed out, as long as we can agree on the basic framework of trading all federal and state bans and registries for a national semi-auto licensing regime.
Oh, and about the requirement for that federal license . . .
Yeah, we’re going to fight over that. A lot, probably. But that fight would be way more reality-centered and sane than our current fights over pistol grips and barrel shrouds and telescoping stocks.
I’m not sure where that optimism comes from.
What about New Jersey’s ban on hollow point ammunition? Dunno. That would have to be “worked out,” too. Would SBRs and suppressors be de-regulated? Dunno. Maybe.
What if President Shannon Watts pushes through a may-issue regime, effectively putting an end to anyone obtaining a federal gun license?
This would be a concern, but it’s already a concern. We may have to rely on the courts for protection. The gun control side is mistaken if it thinks it’s going to immediately begin to dictate entirely new terms of American gun ownership unilaterally in November. President Donald Trump is in the process of packing the federal courts with conservative judges, and he may get another Supreme Court pick before he leaves office. So even if gun controllers can get Congress to move their way, there’s no guarantee that new laws will survive the inevitable court challenges. (Justice Clarence Thomas recently hinted that he thinks state and local assault weapon bans are unconstitutional.) Plus, there’s no possibility of a gun registry under this scheme, so no matter how bad it gets there’s even less of a threat of confiscation than there is under the current system.
I’m not sure that relaying on the courts will give gun owners much comfort.
Methinks that, despite an admirable effort, Stokes has drastically underestimated both the vehemence with which the pro-gun side will resist any federal-level encroachment on their rights (the slippery slope) as well as the intransigence of the gun controllers’ desire to hang onto their strict prohibitions they’ve put in place in states like California, New York, New Jersey and Maryland.
Plus, even assuming this or a similar grand bargain can be struck, the next time an Adam Lanza or a Nikolas Cruz does what it is they do, all bets will be off. Whether or not the shooter was federally licensed, you’ll hear all the same calls from all the same people to rid America of the scourge of these weapons of war.
Or am I too cynical?
I don't think he knows how lethal a man with metal working tools and a little knowledge of chemistry can be... and all without any kind of licensing required.
He also seems to think that a Ruger 10/22 is somehow more "lethal" than a Remington 870. His 'idea' might work well in a fantasy land, somewhere, but the real world is something else...
You just banned millions of people with disorderly conduct misdemeanors or ordinance violations.
Not good.
You just totally erased the distinction between felons and misdemeanants.
Not good.
People found armed and drunk or on drugs have firearm(s) impounded for 30 days
Most drug-consumption is a felony, excepting marijuana. Furthermore, you just confiscated the at-home drinker who has firearms, even locked or in another room.
I know you and like you, but you have not thought this through.
We need guns in order to protect ourselves from fascist a**holes like this scumbag Jon Stokes.
If you have a CCL you don’t have to get a background check now to buy a gun.
I don’t even want to hear the words Federal Gun License. Seriuosly? What does this moron think “shall not be infringed” means. I
Gun license means gun registry and gun confiscation. Who’s going to decide what the criteria is to get the license? Who’s going to stop the govt from changing the rules til nobody qualifies?
Gun licensing is what they have in Canada and Europe.
Every compromise moves the liberal agenda ahead and is a loss to conservatives.
Liberals are perfectly happy to win a small compromise now and another one later on because eventually they attain their goal .
WE THE PEOPLE already have a license to keep and bear arms....it’s called the Second Amendment.
Sooner or later it will be people like Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Eric Holder, Loretta Lynch, James Comey, Andy McCabe, etc.
Don't forget how easily Lois Lerner abused the power of the IRS to discriminate against conservatives.
And got away with it.
Regarding: 1) A “semi-automatic” firearm is one that fires a single round for each pull of the trigger, automatically reloading in between each shot until the ammo is depleted.
I can see anti-gun opponents using the part of that definition the precede’s the comma “A “semi-automatic” firearm is one that fires a single round for each pull of the trigger....” as including double action revolvers in the definition. And the movement of the cylinder holding the bullets as “automatically reloading.”
Also, a bolt and/or lever action rifle could be included by those who want to “creatively stretch” the definition.
The ONLY thing that could work in this sense is an NRA “Eddie Eagle” style firearms safety program in every school in first, fourth, ninth and twelfth grade.
Passing mandatory before graduation might be an option, too.
It’s at least as important to know firearms safety as it is to know quadratic equations, isn’t it?
Actual federal licensing of ownership is a complete non-starter. It doesn’t work that well up here in Canaduh, and having to renew one’s licence every 5 years is nothing less than a tax grab.
BS, this wants gun owners and 2A supporters to “bargain away” their constitutional rights!!!
NO WAY IN HELL DOES THAT EVER GET MY SUPPORT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Those rights are mine, given to me by God and affirmed by our constitution. I also earned each and every one of my constitutional rights by serving our nation for over two decades.
I have one question to ask all of those who think they will take my legal constitutional rights from me.
I know what I will do and how far I will go to protect and keep my rights.
Are you willing to make the same sacrifice to take my firearms away from me that am willing to make to keep them?
Are you willing to die in the attempt to take my guns?
Just something for the gun grabbers to think about. They always seem to think that others will be held responsible for this gun confiscation.
What happens when you, the individual liberal, is personally held responsible? Are you willing to pay that price?
Do you really think that you can outlaw and confiscate guns in this nation and the result will be peaceful? You really can not be that stupid.
No registration, no permits, no restrictions.
Now there is common sense.
Someone pointed that out at Democratic Underground. The reaction? "Fine, ban revolvers as well".
You know, you could change the first line of the Second Amendment to just about anything you want: Because the sky is blue. Or, because birds eat worms. The reason given in the first line really doesn’t matter, because the second line trumps it: The right to bear arms shall not be infringed. Plain and simple. Any sort of licensing is really infringement.
We can make it simpler than this. If you’ve had any reason to undergo a background check & have been cleared, you get a card that states that simple fact. You can buy guns without a further check (NO RECORDS KEPT) at either a gun store or private sale. You can also go thru the Pre-check line at the airport. One fee, one card & that’s it. The gov’t will be required to keep a database of those that were cleared & issued a card so you don’t have to pay another fee & get another check every five years or whatever. If you are arrested or charged with a crime, that goes to the gov’t that checks if you’re on the card database. If so you are required to hand your card back to the gov’t.
I’d accept it under these terms.
You pass a NICS check
You are given an ID card that shows you have passed
You can buy, sell, and carry any firearm you want, anywhere you want.
No registration, no permits, no restrictions.
Now that's government regulation I could live with.
Needs to be severe penalties for counterfeiting the card.
A WELL REGULATED MILITIA, BEING NECESSARY TO THE SECURITY OF A FREE STATE, THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.
What part of that do you not understand? No to licensing or registration or permission or any other spin words. Not now, not ever.
Here is my plan for gun control that works. Put the criminals in jail and keep them there. When they are in jail they they won’t have access to guns.
“Besides, those who have a CHL are not required to go through a background check anyway.”
In Florida we do. Eight bucks worth. Which state are you in?
What we have here, is a failure to communicate. The Second Amendment only makes sense that cannot be challenged if the citizens of a nation are FULLY informed, and not merely indoctrinated.
The simple possession of a means of self-defense is meaningless unless the necessary skills and knowledge to implement that self-defense are also made available to the individual. This would include the basic care, feeding, grooming and some degree of familiarity with the means of self defense, be it an attack dog or a firearm.
For the instance of firearms, I would submit that ALL youth receive, as a basic part of their instruction in life skills, the proper respect for, and the acceptable handling, of firearms, from understanding the basic mechanics involved, the ability to accept basic instructions in safety and maintenance of the weapon, to the proper means of selecting and framing an appropriate target, aiming, and firing, developing a reasonable of accuracy and the ability to do this repeatedly. This would have a two-fold advantage - first of all, it would greatly increase the number of potential recruits for both law enforcement, and for military service. And secondly, those, who by temperament or basically poor regard for such instruction, would be identified quickly, as potential threats should they ever come into possession of a weapon.
Then there would be for those who, for whatever reason, cannot shake off their superstitious dread of firearms, a secondary course in how to avoid, evade, escape or directly confront an active shooter with malice intent. Of course, it would also be obligatory to have tattooed somewhere on the body of the individual member of this classification, the name and Social Security number, to make identification quicker in the worst case scenario.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
