To summarize, he wants to give gun control advocates the following:
[ul]
[li]Ban on high-capacity magazines[/li][li]Universal background checks[/li][li]Outlaw open carry[/li][/ul]
And gun rights advocates get:
[ul]
[li]“shall-issue” permits everywhere[/li][li]No more “evil feature” bans (except the aforementioned magazine ban)[/li][li]No more bans on “armor-piercing” bullets[/li][li]No more “assault weapon bans” (I’m not certain the author realizes this is essentially the same thing as the “evil feature” ban[/li][/ul]
What are your thoughts here?
Mine are that he basically gives the gun control side the things it wants the most, and lets the gun rights side keep things they’ve already won, or are in the process of winning. In other words, I would not sign onto such a proposal, but I suspect that most gun banners would (and do so quite cheerfully).
He also fails to define his limit for “high capacity” magazines. He mentions 100-round drums at first, and then later 30-round magazines. Where would you put the limit? 20? 15? 10? 7? 6?
What tweaks could be made to his proposal to win your support?
I forgot to add that the author would also ban “silencers”. I doubt he’s actually fired many rounds through suppressors. If he had, I doubt he’d feel the need to add in this clause. For those who haven’t used a suppressor before, a rough example of their effectiveness might be: they could turn a 150 dB gunshot into a 120 dB gunshot. It’s not like in the movies with little “pew-pew” noises.
The Pro-Gun side doesn’t have to negotiate, they have culture and the 2nd Amendment on their side. So why surrender some of what they have now, what’s the benefit to them?
We’ve been compromising on our gun rights for centuries. Every time, we ‘split the difference’ and institute more gun control, and then progressives return a few years later to repeat the process. No, you hoplophobic gun grabbing liberal, you cannot take any more of our rights.
The author of this article can enjoy getting forced by comrade Stalin into the gulags after he disarms the populace and some other lefty figures out that rent-seeking journalists at failed media publications like The Daily Beast are the real bourgeoisie. I, like the rest of right-wing America, will continue to stockpile ammunition and firearms. Don’t like it? Molon Labe.
So you’ve found an article by an online commentator no one has heard of writing for a magazine that is all but defunct proposing something that nobody of significance is getting behind?
Well that and why would we care if the person writing was a leftist writing in a leftist mag? And really, if Newsweek is leftist then you need to get out more.
I know this is a popular refrain but is it true? What are all these gun rights you once had but have now lost? Where was this well meaning compromise by gun owners to the ebil libruhls?
The article seems to be behind a pay wall, but just based on the OP it seems reasonable.
That would be my only question as well. ‘high capacity’ is pretty nebulous, and where the bar is set would determine if this proposal is fair and balanced on both sides or not. If you define ‘high capacity’ as ‘holds more than one round’ then that would not be too good, but if you definite it as a magazine that holds more rounds than would fit into the normal magazine for the weapon (i.e. extended magazines) then that seems like a good compromise to me.
I’d take the open carry off, since it’s so little used anyway that it seems kind of silly. I think the universal background checks alone is enough of a concession that gun control advocates should be happy with that, especially since most of the things gun rights advocates are getting out of this proposal are pretty stupid and silly little laws written by folks who don’t actually understand much about guns or how they work…or what the main issues are. Almost all of them are cosmetic stuff or misunderstanding the basics on how rifles work and what they do (and what ‘bullet proof’ armor is actually for and what it can and can’t do). Still, I have no major heart burn over universal background checks or even weapons registration. I think it’s time to let go some of the suspicion and animus that the gun rights guys have for the gun grabber types in the past. I think that those days of trying to sneak in slimy legislation through the back door when no one was watching are behind us now, especially since folks ARE watching these days. But the other side of that is that we need some controls on this stuff, and I think a reasonable compromise would be go concede background checks.
The primary federal laws are the National Firearms Act (1934), the Gun Control Act of 1968, and the Firearms Owner Protection Act (1986). These laws have banned or made more difficult the purchase or short barrel shotguns, automatic firearms, and suppressors, in addition to creating a leviathan of paperwork and regulation. There is also a thicket of state-level regulations, especially in left-leaning states like California and New York.
The beginning of this started ok…and then it went into crazytown. Just FYI, I am a lefty liberal (EVIL!) who lives in NY and owns guns, and plan to buy more. I don’t give a shit about short barrel guns and automatic firearms and suppressors. I do think everyone should have a background check, ESPECIALLY at gun shows, and have no problem with that.
It’s not all right wingers who own guns and I hate that idea. Oh, and you stockpiling all your ammo? Means less for everyone else. You guys created the nationwide shortage of .22 rounds.
The only thing his proposal gives to gun owners is armor piercing pistol ammo. I’d bet, without poll data, that unless the gun owner in question uses “jack booted thug” in conversation regularly that’s at best viewed as a neutral. I can see if being viewed as a clear negative by a decent chunk of gun owners. The only passion about armor piercing rounds was related to rifle ammo (which shouldn’t have fallen under the armor piercing ammo for pistols restrictions because it’s ALL armor piercing). That calls in to question the writers knowledge about gun issues. Maybe he thinks he’s offering something. In exchange gun control advocates get some of their positions that they are unlikely to get politically if there’s no agreement.
It’s kind of like a parent, who’s already cooking spaghetti, offering their kid spaghetti and brussels sprouts (that they don’t like) for dinner if they pick up their toys and agree to go to bed on time without complaint. It’s not a compromise.
[ul]
[li]How high is “high-capacity”?[/li][li]Does this mean background checks for private sales/transfers?[/li][li]Did you/he mean “outlaw concealed carry”? I don’t see how open carry is any more dangerous than concealed.[/li][/ul]
[ul]
[li]Shall-issue is fine. [/li][li]I would need to know what “evil features” aren’t going to be banned.[/li][li]I think this is the same as the “evil features” thing. The assault weapon ban didn’t really mean what it said, because it didn’t know what made for an assault weapon.[/li][/ul]And further -
[ul][li]Is this agreement going to overrule every gun law on the states’ books?[/li][li]How are the gun control advocates going to bind themselves not to push for what they say they aren’t going to push for?[/ul][/li]
Yes, it is nice they want to compromise. The compromise has to be clear, and binding on both parties.
What about future developments in technology? If there are to be no bans on types of ammunition, what happens when someone develops a new type of round that’s even nastier than armor-piercing?
Throwing away any possibility of future regulation is a dangerous concession.
Here are some items that I think certain segments of the gun-owning community would be enticed by:
[ul]
[li]re-open the NFA registry (basically end the '86 machine gun ban)[/li][li]nation-wide CCW reciprocity[/li][li]remove supressors, SBRs and SBSs from the NFA (really, the legal distinction between a full-length AR, an AR pistol, and an SBR’ed AR makes no sense)[/li][li]constitution carry in more states / locations (we’ve already basically won the shall-issue battle; I think there are 8 remaining may-issue states)[/li][/ul]
The point isn’t that this particular proposal is on the cusp of becoming law. I agree that the writer is basically a nobody and his employer is basically defunct at this point. The idea was to generate a conversation about what would be a fair compromise. This author offered his perspective, and I thought it was interesting because he offered some specifics. Imagine yourself, the swing vote on the Supreme Court, or the chief lobbyist for the NRA, or President Obama’s gun czar, basically, someone in a position to influence gun laws: which proposals could you support, which ones would you oppose, where do you think you might be able to concede and offer some compromise to the other side that they’d find enticing?
In exchange gun control advocates get some of their positions that they are unlikely to get politically if there’s no agreement.