DC Gun Laws - where is the accountability?

[cb1000rider]

Chasfm11,
I appreciate the polite discussion. You raise good points and your disagreement is logical and respectful. Thank you.

In my view, there is and never has been a compromise by the gun control faction. When they don't get everything they want this time, that is not a compromise because they are back proposing the rest of the package at the next event. They've lost with things like the assault weapons ban termination but were back with it in spades following Sandy Hook. They never compromise. They never go away. But that really wasn't the focus of why I posted this situation.

That's an interesting point. It may be true, but it's also symbolic of the type of paralysis in congress and on the gun rights / gun control front. Everyone says that the other side won't compromise. I've been thinking about it a lot on the 2nd amendment side. Would I trade a stricter background check program for a less eroded 2nd amendment? I think I would. Is the NRA capable of having that discussion that includes compromise? Probably not. Is the gun control faction capable of having that discussion? Probably not. The reality is that the gun control faction doesn't believe a word that the NRA says and vice versa... So we've got an effective stalemate, maybe advantage NRA (due to funding and pretty solid conservative backing). Neither side should get to discuss it because they're both largely incapable of compromise.

I had a lot of hope for the bi-partisan Gang of Eight - take out the hard core refusal to compromise of the party and make people have a rational discussion where everything is on the table. Of course that failed because the output went back to congress.

I agree with you on the legal system. It's wacked. It's also less wacked than the rest of the world. You're massive advantaged if you're wealthy. You're probably still advantaged if you're white. And we see instances all the time in the media where LEOs couldn't make a logical decision for themselves and DAs are even worse. Lives are ruined. Peoples finances are destroyed.

Speeding - you're right on. 95% of speeding enforcement is about revenue, not safety. When I lived in N. Dallas years ago, there was a little town near Lavon that wrote something like 10x as many tickets as they had people in that area. They eventually got sued and shut down. I think enforcement like that is partly why PDs can't get 100% of ticket revenue directly (if I remember correctly). I accept is as part of the system, however.. I used to get worked up over it, but eventually recognized it as my favorite kind of tax - the "voluntary tax". If I didn't speed, I didn't pay. That and I sold the Corvette, which makes me a little sad.

[VMI77]

That's an interesting point. It may be true, but it's also symbolic of the type of paralysis in congress and on the gun rights / gun control front. Everyone says that the other side won't compromise. I've been thinking about it a lot on the 2nd amendment side. Would I trade a stricter background check program for a less eroded 2nd amendment? I think I would. Is the NRA capable of having that discussion that includes compromise? Probably not. Is the gun control faction capable of having that discussion? Probably not. The reality is that the gun control faction doesn't believe a word that the NRA says and vice versa... So we've got an effective stalemate, maybe advantage NRA (due to funding and pretty solid conservative backing). Neither side should get to discuss it because they're both largely incapable of compromise.

I think you're underestimating our opposition. It's not that they don't believe what the NRA says, they don't care what it says, because their goal isn't gun "control," it's getting guns out of the hands of the populace. Just read what they say to each other on the subject. The gun grabbers have never compromised on anything....if you think they have I challenge you to cite an example? We have fewer gun rights now than we had 100 years ago.

You'd have to describe what a less eroded 2nd amendment is, and what you mean by stricter background checks to really understand the trade-offs --maybe I wouldn't have a problem with that either....in theory. The problem is that our opponents will never allow a system of stricter background checks that doesn't deny guns to more law abiding citizens --especially if they have to give something up for it. They will only agree to it if it advances them towards their ultimate goal.

I think we differ on this because you're attributing the same good intentions you have to your opposition. It's this kind of good faith on our side that has enabled them to advance their agenda so far. There may be some in the opposition who genuinely believe their rhetoric, but they don't have any power --the ones in power aren't acting in good faith.

[cb1000rider]

I think you're underestimating our opposition. It's not that they don't believe what the NRA says, they don't care what it says, because their goal isn't gun "control," it's getting guns out of the hands of the populace. Just read what they say to each other on the subject. The gun grabbers have never compromised on anything....if you think they have I challenge you to cite an example? We have fewer gun rights now than we had 100 years ago.

I don't attribute what the super conservative Republicans say to the Republican party. Nor do I attribute what radically liberal/socialist/etc Democrats say to the Democratic party. I don't think that there is a substantial portion of the population that thinks we should take everyone's guns. I think there is moderate portion of the public that supports (per polls I've seen) some additional restrictions on gun control. That doesn't make them "gun grabbers". I think that *most* of the population is caught in the middle and is fed information via the media that they tend to believe on face value. Sure, there are people that might take them all. There are people that would hand full-auto weapons out to the general population.

You're right. We have fewer gun rights than we had 100 years ago. The 2nd amendment which shall not be infringed is clearly infringed. You'll get zero argument from me there. I find it somewhat incredulous that we have laws that fly so counter to a specific constitutional amendment..

I don't have an example of "gun grabber" compromise. I wouldn't expect that anyone who legitimately wants to take all the guns out of the USA would compromise. That's a radical agenda. It's way far off centrist and doesn't have popular support. I won't paint everyone that might support less radical ideas with that brush.

You'd have to describe what a less eroded 2nd amendment is, and what you mean by stricter background checks to really understand the trade-offs --maybe I wouldn't have a problem with that either....in theory. The problem is that our opponents will never allow a system of stricter background checks that doesn't deny guns to more law abiding citizens --especially if they have to give something up for it. They will only agree to it if it advances them towards their ultimate goal.

A less eroded 2nd amendment to me is likely firming up national gun laws and taking restrictions out of the hands of the states. There is too much variation in the states and I'd like to see federal courts rule to de-infringe the 2nd amendment. I want the right to carry a firearm in the 50 states. I want enough specific legal support to disallow arrests under conditions of legal carry and I want substantial penalties if enforcement branches get it wrong. I can live with or without OC, but I don't want to have to spend 30 minutes reviewing the rule book every time I cross state lines. And I'd rather not worry about the internal policy of Round Rock PD on CHL. Yea, I'd trade stricter purchase requirements - even on private purchases for that... That would be a compromise I could live with.

I think we differ on this because you're attributing the same good intentions you have to your opposition. It's this kind of good faith on our side that has enabled them to advance their agenda so far. There may be some in the opposition who genuinely believe their rhetoric, but they don't have any power --the ones in power aren't acting in good faith.

You might be right. You assume there is an end goal of massively restricting firearm ownership and certainly it's headed that way looking at historical context. I don't think I believe in good intentions of "gun grabbers" - but I believe that there is a legitimate middle ground that can be found between NRA and gun grabber policies. Maybe one that advances the agendas of both. I don't believe that either party has enough credibility in the compromise department to get it done and it seems (from the outside) that neither side is willing to discuss it. I mean, what would happen if someone in NRA leadership actually publicly discussed a compromise that involved allowing more stringent background checks? I think that head would be on a stick in a very short amount of time.

[bizarrenormality]

I don't see how having a financial requirement of any kind for voting is different from the "Poll Tax" that was abolished by Constitutional amendment. Seems kind of a Jim Crowish solution.

What about charging a $140 fee to exercise our right to keep and bear arms. In a limited set of locations. And we have to hide it.

[jmra]

I don't see how having a financial requirement of any kind for voting is different from the "Poll Tax" that was abolished by Constitutional amendment. Seems kind of a Jim Crowish solution.

What about charging a $140 fee to exercise our right to keep and bear arms. In a limited set of locations. And we have to hide it.

$140 for 5 years. Or in my case $25 for 5 years.

[bizarrenormality]

I'm talking about base price but regardless, do you think requiring a 5 hour class and $140 for a five year license would pass muster to vote? If not, then it shouldn't pass muster to exercise a right that shall not be infringed.

[jmra]

I'm talking about base price but regardless, do you think requiring a 5 hour class and $140 for a five year license would pass muster to vote? If not, then it shouldn't pass muster to exercise a right that shall not be infringed.

I don't see what one has to do with the other. You can bash Texas all you want. I for one am very happy with the progress that has been made in this state and I look forward to that progress continuing and it will as long as certain radicals don't impede it (and I'm not talking about the anti gunners).

[VMI77]

I don't attribute what the super conservative Republicans say to the Republican party. Nor do I attribute what radically liberal/socialist/etc Democrats say to the Democratic party. I don't think that there is a substantial portion of the population that thinks we should take everyone's guns. I think there is moderate portion of the public that supports (per polls I've seen) some additional restrictions on gun control. That doesn't make them "gun grabbers". I think that *most* of the population is caught in the middle and is fed information via the media that they tend to believe on face value. Sure, there are people that might take them all. There are people that would hand full-auto weapons out to the general population.

I don't attribute the most ideological of either party to represent the majority of the rank and file in all matters. However, when it comes to guns, the party leadership lines up perfectly in the Democratic party from the top down. Obama, Holder, and Pelosi (among others) have all said they want to ban all civilian gun ownership. Another large portion of the party leadership is on-board for various bans from handguns to semi-autos to the fraudulently represented "high capacity" magazines. But you're right that what the leadership wants isn't supported by the larger population. That's why we still have guns. If I remember correctly, when they banned handguns in the UK only about 35,000 people owned one. This is why they must first demonize gun ownership and reduce the percentage of the population owning guns....which hasn't been working so well for them so far, at least in flyover country.

A less eroded 2nd amendment to me is likely firming up national gun laws and taking restrictions out of the hands of the states. There is too much variation in the states and I'd like to see federal courts rule to de-infringe the 2nd amendment. I want the right to carry a firearm in the 50 states. I want enough specific legal support to disallow arrests under conditions of legal carry and I want substantial penalties if enforcement branches get it wrong. I can live with or without OC, but I don't want to have to spend 30 minutes reviewing the rule book every time I cross state lines. And I'd rather not worry about the internal policy of Round Rock PD on CHL. Yea, I'd trade stricter purchase requirements - even on private purchases for that... That would be a compromise I could live with.

The problem with that proposed compromise is that it will never happen. Or maybe I should say, it can't happen. I'd also be concerned about conceding that kind of power from State hands to the Feds.

I don't think I believe in good intentions of "gun grabbers" - but I believe that there is a legitimate middle ground that can be found between NRA and gun grabber policies. Maybe one that advances the agendas of both. I don't believe that either party has enough credibility in the compromise department to get it done and it seems (from the outside) that neither side is willing to discuss it. I mean, what would happen if someone in NRA leadership actually publicly discussed a compromise that involved allowing more stringent background checks? I think that head would be on a stick in a very short amount of time.

I don't know what a more stringent background check would entail but it sounds like a weapon for the grabbers to use against us. They're already pushing out the psychological boundaries to label more and more people as too dangerous to own a gun. Since we can't trust them to even follow their own laws I am confident they will abuse such a system to expand the denial of gun ownership.

[chasfm11]

<snip>
I don't know what a more stringent background check would entail but it sounds like a weapon for the grabbers to use against us. They're already pushing out the psychological boundaries to label more and more people as too dangerous to own a gun. Since we can't trust them to even follow their own laws I am confident they will abuse such a system to expand the denial of gun ownership.

And I'll take it further. The basis of the discussion is "shall not be infringed." When the gun grabbers will first acknowledge Constitutional carry everywhere, then I'm happy to talk about background checks as long as the discussion is clear about the fact that every restriction on who can own or carry firearms is based on solid evidence, not a bunch of trumped up, emotionally charged pie-in-the-sky hooey that puts "climate change" to shame.

I strongly believe that the test for new laws should be a detailed explanation of exactly the problem that is being solved and exactly the method of doing it. There never has been any more evidence of the good of an AWB than there was of dead polar bears. It was solely someones "observation" Until that changes, I'm not ready to talk about anything further. And gun registration with the government, in any shape or fashion, will never be on the table.