| Submit your comments on this article |
| -Land of the Free |
| A grand bargain on guns is possible |
| 2013-12-29 |
| The author is president of the pro gun control astroturf group, Independent Firearm Owners Association Inc. According to the Gun Rights Examiner he was the guy who signed off on requring gun locks on gun sales contrary to the wishes of the National Rifle Association in 1997. A year ago, in the days after 20 children and six adults were killed at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., it seemed something had changed in America's long-running debate on guns. Some consensus seemed possible. He actually meant a stampede was underway and gun control fascists were leading the charge. But that was then. Today the voices on both sides are back to being as shrill as ever. Actually only one side is shrill, the gun control side. Still, behind the heated rhetoric, there are areas of agreement. While polls show Americans almost evenly divided on whether they want more gun control, they overwhelmingly support expanded gun-buyer background checks and overwhelmingly oppose bans on handguns. "Overwhelmingly", even if it means 99 percent, they don't get a vote on my rights, ever. Those two positions suggest potential for crafting a grander bargain on guns, a new set of policies premised on two complementary goals: protecting the rights of responsible, law-abiding gun owners and gun sellers, while giving law enforcement better tools to deter and prosecute criminal access to guns. What might such a grand bargain look like? "responsible, law-abiding" are leftist buzzwords which means serf. To fascists like this guy, "responsible, law-abiding" is the best you can be, subject to the political whims of your political opponents. For starters, it would clearly set out the rights and responsibilities of gun retailers. Advocates for stronger gun laws argue that there are a handful of bad-apple gun stores that, through incompetence, negligence and nefarious intent, lose track of tens or hundreds of guns in inventory. True. I wouldn't know. Gun store owners, in my estimation are part of the problem, but are regarded by facsists as tools for gun confiscation. Gun-rights advocates point out that most retail firearm dealers are mom-and-pop businesses and that, on some occasions, they have been shut down by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives for mere paperwork errors. Also true. The ATF shuts down these small dealers because doing so is the only civil tool it has to encourage compliance with its rules. Puleez. Shutting them down is the lightest penalty the ATF has been known to impose. The solution isn't that complicated. Congress should enact a law that would allow the ATF to assess sliding fines or brief suspensions. A provision that would do this is included in a bill introduced by Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., and endorsed by the National Rifle Association. Nothing stops the ATF from writing the regulation. Where the problem is is when Congress gets involved. we the people edge ever closer to prison time, every time. And Mark Rubio sold his soul to La Santana. His views are like Hillery's. Another element would involve redefining who is prohibited from owning a gun. Under federal law, all convicted felons, domestic abusers, adjudicated mentally ill people and certain other narrow categories of people are barred, typically for life, from purchasing, borrowing or possessing guns. Narrow categories my ass. The way the law is implemented now, any misdemeanor crime is cause for denial of the purchase of a firearm. The way the law is implemented is way too broad, and so far even groups like the NRA and republicans act like this is not a problem, and refuse to deal with this injustice. Permanent ban because of a mistake? Where's the justice in that? It was wrong when the law was passed. It is wrong now. This federal ban is both too expansive and not expansive enough. A law should be passed that makes people convicted of nonviolent drug offenses and financial crimes eligible to possess guns again after a period of years. Again, very little stops the ATF from writing the regulation. At the same time, certain dangerous criminals are slipping through the cracks of the federal laws. While 39 states prohibit gun possession or gun carrying by certain violent misdemeanants, federal law is silent. We should update the federal law to bar gun possession by people sentenced to jail terms for violent misdemeanor crimes, such as stalking or assault, for a period of years. More laws mean more constraints and more government. Less rights and less freedom will be the result of more laws passed. A third component of better gun laws would include expanded background checks and expanded rights for those who have qualified for permits to carry concealed weapons. In the wake of Newtown, 55 senators voted to support expanded background checks. That same day, 57 senators voted for a provision to allow permit holders from one state to carry concealed guns into any other state. Both measures failed ? to meet the 60-vote threshold. Once a national concealed weapons data base is passed into law, I promise you confiscation is just around the corner. Gun-rights advocates argue that a federal law to allow interstate concealed carry should be likened to the way states honor driver's licenses from every other state. On the other side, gun-control advocates argue that, because some states have more stringent standards for gun-carry permits, they should have the right to keep out people with permits from more lenient states. Meanwhile, on background checks, polls consistently show that more than three-quarters of Americans, including clear majorities of gun owners, support expanding background checks. But some gun owners worry about regulating transfers among family members, friends, co-workers and other people they know well. So let's come up with a system that requires checks for all gun sales but exempts transfers among family members, temporary transfers and a small set of other transactions. And let's devise a uniform set of intelligent standards, including training and clean criminal records, for a national concealed-carry system. The author wants a special class of individuals to be exempt of gun regulations, like law enforcement. The rest of us can just go unarmed. |
| Posted by:badanov |
| #9 For starters, it would clearly set out the rights and responsibilities of gun retailers. Advocates for stronger gun laws argue that there are a handful of bad-apple gun stores that, through incompetence, negligence and nefarious intent, lose track of tens or hundreds of guns in inventory. True. I didn't see the part where the BATF/Federal Government/DOJ Policy was arming Mexican gangsters. Maybe Marcus wasn't so far off, except it wasn't the NRA giving weapons to the black community... Another element would involve redefining who is prohibited from owning a gun. Under federal law, all convicted felons, domestic abusers, adjudicated mentally ill people and certain other narrow categories of people are barred, typically for life, from purchasing, borrowing or possessing guns. What I understand is the CT nutcase was, in fact, a nutcase who killed his own mother then stole a weapon then killed those kids. I think that is already against the law. An agency which cold calls for donations for retired LEOs, most likely a 3rd hand party, used to use the line "Well its not Mayberry anymore" well, it never was Mayberry. In fact the only places I have been to which anything resembles the fictional Hollywood storyline do not exist without heavy patrol, walls and gates, and alarms. My small town of Mayberry had my neighbor get their door handle broken off on Christmas Eve, the lock to my business jimmey'd, and x shipments of meth trafficed from Mexico pass within a horse's ride. |
| Posted by: swksvolFF 2013-12-29 13:54 |
| #8 Baby steps, girls and boys. Remember how we did it with the media and the schools. |
| Posted by: Bobby 2013-12-29 11:49 |
| #7 Like flushing all the toilets on campus at the same time, one wonders what would happen to society if every lib who wets his / her / its drawers upon seeing a gun were to all be shown one at exactly the same time... |
| Posted by: M. Murcek 2013-12-29 08:38 |
| #6 Let's see: a 20% off New Year's Day sale? |
| Posted by: Eric Jablow 2013-12-29 08:12 |
| #5 A grand bargain on guns is possible A final solution, so to speak? |
| Posted by: g(r)omgoru 2013-12-29 07:33 |
| #4 Grand bargain = comprehensive = washingtonese for "shit sammich..." |
| Posted by: M. Murcek 2013-12-29 07:31 |
| #3 ....I'm sorry, but when I hear the words 'grand bargain', I want to reach for my gun. Mike |
| Posted by: Mike Kozlowski 2013-12-29 07:00 |
| #2 |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2013-12-29 06:10 |
| #1 Consensus - meaning the other side abandons its values and agrees with you. No thanks. Ever. |
| Posted by: Cheager Smiter of the Huns2124 2013-12-29 00:11 |