Background checks looking like the "compromise"

[Charles L. Cotton]

I wonder of the FFLs support this as it will drive business their way.

I've seen four different TV news reports at Houston areas gun shops and shooting ranges. Every single one of the business owners (obviously FFLs) support a requirement for background checks on all private transactions. Each claimed it was a matter of "public safety" but that was a lie. It's all about money.

What is interesting is that several people shooting at ranges were interviewed and the majority of them supported background checks private sales at gun shows and a large percentage supported background checks on all private sales. These are people who not only own guns, but were out shooting them at the time they were interviewed.

Chas.

[fickman]

.What will you tell them?

Chas.

Get me national reciprocity and abolish gun free zones at schools, and you've got yourself a deal!



(I know there would be a major public outcry at the change to schools... illogical, but the words would never look right hitting the press. I do wonder if national reciprocity could slip under the radar in such a bill.)

I'm grateful for the many little snippets of law the NRA has had the foresight to get slipped into bills in the past that are protecting us in this current storm.

[Charles L. Cotton]

Also, why don't we stop calling these things compromises? They are not compromises. Calling them compromises is us propogating the anti's language terminology. With all due respect, Charles hypothetical is not a compromise. Everything proposed from the AWB, magazine limit, and background checks all amount to infringement - losses. If all that is passed is the background check then we have not compromised. We have a net loss. The antis have a net gain. We just limited our losses on a temporary basis.

A true compromise would be if we lost on the background checks and gained silencers without the NFA requirements.

Anygunanywhere

That's your definition, but it's not accurate or realistic.

I knew you wouldn't answer my hypothetical question, because it would have required you to put away your rhetoric and made a decision that will directly impact the lives of 150,000 American gun owners. You gave your position speech, but you never said if you would tell the coalition of Senators and Congressmen if you would accept their offer to strip the assault weapons ban and the magazine ban and limit the private sale background checks to gun shows. I'd still like to know that answer.

Chas.

[A-R]

I wonder of the FFLs support this as it will drive business their way.

I've seen four different TV news reports at Houston areas gun shops and shooting ranges. Every single one of the business owners (obviously FFLs) support a requirement for background checks on all private transactions. Each claimed it was a matter of "public safety" but that was a lie. It's all about money.

This part I get, and just assumed anyway.

What is interesting is that several people shooting at ranges were interviewed and the majority of them supported background checks private sales at gun shows and a large percentage supported background checks on all private sales. These are people who not only own guns, but were out shooting them at the time they were interviewed.

This part I honestly don't understand. Is it because they're all law-abiding and so it won't affect them? Reminds me of: "First they came for the ..." mentality

[A-R]

.What will you tell them?

Chas.

Get me national reciprocity and abolish gun free zones at schools, and yoi've got yourself a deal!

THIS

[Charles L. Cotton]

.What will you tell them?

Chas.

Get me national reciprocity and abolish gun free zones at schools, and yoi've got yourself a deal!



(I know there would be a major public outcry at the change to schools... illogical, but the words would never look right hitting the press. I do wonder if national reciprocity could slip under the radar in such a bill.)

I'm grateful for the many little snippets of law the NRA has had the foresight to get slipped into bills in the past that are protecting us in this current storm.

That's not an option because that won't pass. The question you face is simply this; 1) accept the coalition's offer and preserve American's ability to legally own assault weapons and hi-cap mags, while requiring background checks on private sales at gun shows; or 2) refuse their offer and 150,000 American gun owners can no longer possess assault weapons, magazines, and background checks will be required on all transfers of firearms.

What's your decision? Tought call, isn't it? But your the guy who has to make the call on behalf of all Americans, so you don't get to punt. Do you accept their offer or not?

Chas.

[anygunanywhere]

That's your definition, but it's not accurate or realistic.

I knew you wouldn't answer my hypothetical question, because it would have required you to put away your rhetoric and made a decision that will directly impact the lives of 150,000 American gun owners. You gave your position speech, but you never said if you would tell the coalition of Senators and Congressmen if you would accept their offer to strip the assault weapons ban and the magazine ban and limit the private sale background checks to gun shows. I'd still like to know that answer.

Chas.

This was not my response to your question, Charles.

The following post was. I freely admit that politics in DC is the reason the government exists, not preserving the republic the way it was founded.

Remind them of what happened the last time the AWB passed and heads rolled during the next election for starters. These recent events need to be burned into our memory next mid term election.

Then I would question the validity of their claim that their constituents are demanding them do something like limit our 2A freedoms.

Your question is a valid one and does reflect the way things work in DC, unfortunately. The position we are in now facing continued compromise on second amendment rights is a fight we should not be in and reflects the gradual erosion of our liberties that has progressed since the ink dried on the documents.

I know how this will end up. I do not accept this. We will lose in the end. We will never gain anything back at the federal level.

The only question I have is when will it be "Game, Set, Match! They win. Turn them in?"

Thanks for the thought provoking question.

Anygunanywhere

ANygunanywhere

[fickman]

Do you accept their offer or not?

Chas.

Of course... especially if private sale bg checks are limited to gun shows. I'd consider trying to get a sunset date in though as an "let's see if this makes a difference before we make it permanent"... unless I thought revisiting it at a later date could put us back in the crosshairs and risk further slippage through additional constraints.

[Charles L. Cotton]

That's your definition, but it's not accurate or realistic.

I knew you wouldn't answer my hypothetical question, because it would have required you to put away your rhetoric and made a decision that will directly impact the lives of 150,000 American gun owners. You gave your position speech, but you never said if you would tell the coalition of Senators and Congressmen if you would accept their offer to strip the assault weapons ban and the magazine ban and limit the private sale background checks to gun shows. I'd still like to know that answer.

Chas.

This was not my response to your question, Charles.

The following post was. I freely admit that politics in DC is the reason the government exists, not preserving the republic the way it was founded.

Remind them of what happened the last time the AWB passed and heads rolled during the next election for starters. These recent events need to be burned into our memory next mid term election.

Then I would question the validity of their claim that their constituents are demanding them do something like limit our 2A freedoms.

Your question is a valid one and does reflect the way things work in DC, unfortunately. The position we are in now facing continued compromise on second amendment rights is a fight we should not be in and reflects the gradual erosion of our liberties that has progressed since the ink dried on the documents.

I know how this will end up. I do not accept this. We will lose in the end. We will never gain anything back at the federal level.

The only question I have is when will it be "Game, Set, Match! They win. Turn them in?"

Thanks for the thought provoking question.

Anygunanywhere

ANygunanywhere

Okay, but how about answering the question. Would you accept the coalition's offer or would you refuse?

Chas.

[anygunanywhere]

That's your definition, but it's not accurate or realistic.


Chas.

com·pro·mise

/ˈkämprəˌmīz/

Noun - An agreement or a settlement of a dispute that is reached by each side making concessions.

Verb - Settle a dispute by mutual concession.

Please explain to me how it is a compromise if only one side makes concessions? It might be defined that way in politics and in DC, but that is not the true meaning of the word.

Anygun

[anygunanywhere]

Okay, but how about answering the question. Would you accept the coalition's offer or would you refuse?

Chas.

I would accept the offer.

This really is all about losing the fight eventually isn't it?

Anygunanywhere

[fickman]

Talk show hosts, academics, and philosophers get to be consistently ideological. Politicians are always faced with a mixed bag of ideology and pragmatism. It's an ugly world out there.

[ShepherdTX]

I am not an expert on everything involved with a NICS check other than what I experience when I buy a new gun, but how about simply a law that requires a NICS check
(Or have had a NICS check in the past 90 days or so) to enter a gun show with exceptions for CHL, LEO, children, etc..?

I know that's not a perfect solution and probably has a few issues\concerns in the details but it would preserves private sales outside of gun shows and will give the perception of closing the loophole.

Feel free to point out any problems I might not be seeing with something like this. I'm not going to cry if it's a bad idea.

[Charles L. Cotton]

Of course... especially if private sale bg checks are limited to gun shows. I'd consider trying to get a sunset date in though as an "let's see if this makes a difference before we make it permanent"... unless I thought revisiting it at a later date could put us back in the crosshairs and risk further slippage through additional constraints.

You bet we'll try to get any positive provisions we can, if we are forced to face this Hobson's choice.

The whole purpose of my hypothetical folks is to point out that sometimes we have to make decisions that are hard to swallow. I realize that a few folks would honestly and sincerely prefer that we lose everything so long as we don't "compromise." The vast majority of Americans do not agree with that philosophy and I am among them. We put up the best fight we can and at the end of the day you protect the Constitution and American gun owners to the best of our ability.

How well we can do that will depend upon whether gun owners join the NRA in the numbers we need and provide the financial support we need. If we grow to 40 million Members, then we probably can dictate pretty much anything we want, but that's not possible with 4 million Members, especially in our current emotionally charged political atmosphere in Washington.

Chas.

[Dave2]

I am not an expert on everything involved with a NICS check other than what I experience when I buy a new gun, but how about simply a law that requires a NICS check
(Or have had a NICS check in the past 90 days or so) to enter a gun show with exceptions for CHL, LEO, children, etc..?

I know that's not a perfect solution and probably has a few issues\concerns in the details but it would preserves private sales outside of gun shows and will give the perception of closing the loophole.

Feel free to point out any problems I might not be seeing with something like this. I'm not going to cry if it's a bad idea.

What about all the non-gun non-ammo stuff?