Such as any restrictions at all on the means to do it. Tell us another one.
This is a warning for personal insults. If you feel you must, the BBQ Pit is right around the corner.
To everyone else, it’s a holiday today, so I’m hanging with the family. The thread is moving a bit quicker than I can keep up with while out and about, but I’ll come back and evaluate the rest of the thread in a bit.
Going forward in this thread, I’m done with the not so subtle innuendo for stupid rhetorical points. If you can’t respond to others without being condescending or snide, then don’t. Further continuance of this behavior will lead to additional warnings. This is a catch all and the next subsequent warnings will likely be failure to follow instructions.
[/moderating]
Last year, I sold off an NFA weapon that had belonged to my late father. Selling is just as complicated as buying. The process took months. I’m not going to do Czarcasm’s research for him. but I will say this: If buying and selling common firearms was made as difficult, time consuming, and expensive as it is for machine guns, our resident antis would consider it a wet dream come true.
“Even easier” he says…
But would not this type of permit supersede all state and local permits? If I have such a permit, I wouldn’t need a permit from my state, correct?
For the record, I’d be fine with that too. There are some differences between the two proposal, but it’s a bit of inside baseball (which I’ll try to explain below). Generally, either proposal would be seen as a big step forward for the right of the people to keep and bear arms, and leave gun-control advocates weeping and wailing and gnashing their teeth.
The inside baseball part:
With precious few exceptions (federal LEOs?), most concealed-carry permits are issued by individual states. For example, Utah has their requirements and system, Oklahoma has their own. Many states have “reciprocity agreements” in which they accept as valid within their state, the CCW permits of various other states. This is a bit of a patchwork system today, and has spawned a bit of a cottage industry in keeping track of which states honor which permits (see Concealed Carry Permit Reciprocity Maps (Updated May 2024) for one example - just click on a state on the map). Nationwide reciprocity would basically supercede these reciprocity agreements and just make anyone’s CCW permit valid in every state. H.R. 38 is one such proposal.
Federal CCW permits are another way to skin the same cat. Basically, rather than relying on states to issue permits, the feds would set up their own system, with its own requirements, and allow anyone to apply and obtain a CCW permit that would be good across the whole country. I don’t like this proposal as much because I generally dislike the federal government and would rather see the states control the permitting process, but it’d be an improvement for the RKBA, and so I’d be happy if it passed instead.
I suspect the disagreement on favorites between the two probably comes in states where permits are relatively easy to obtain, the residents probably favor nationwide reciprocity. In states that are stingy with their permits, I suspect the residents favor a federal permitting system.
Supersede was a poor choice of words on my part. Yes, if you had it you wouldn’t need a state permit. What I was trying to communicate was that the states would not stop issuing their own permits or honoring each others. Again, this would be functionally the same, for those who want to take the trouble, as the situation is today for cops and retired cops. Everybody else who is content with the state permits can just go on with things as usual.
False. I accept a good many restrictions on the RKBA today. I’m not advocating for a repeal of the NFA in its entirety, for example.
Is that *really *a major consideration?
False again.
So if there was a minimum standard to obtain a permit which was agreed upon by all states, and there was nationwide CCW reciprocity, both you and Scumpup would believe that to be acceptable?
It sounds like you’re asking if we did both. If I’m understanding your question, then my answer is a resounding YES! That would be a double-win in my eyes.
I would. There would have to be absolutely no gaming of the system to make permits difficult or impossible to obtain (see recent events in Washington DC). It would have to be shall issue, not may issue. It would have to be free…as in no monetary charges whatsoever. It would also have to be no ifs/ands/buts good in every square inch of US terrritory too.
The biggest problem with it is how both sides see the arguement.
When the gun advocates hear ‘can we at least ban AR-15 style weapons’, they hear ‘can we ban guns that look scary and military-like’.
It would be like, if we found out that more people die in car wrecks caused by red cars, then let’s ban red cars because they are more lethal. The color of the car does nothing to change the lethality, the look of the AR-15 style weapon does nothing to its lethality.
There are 10s of millions of gun owners in this country, the vast majority have never shot anyone or done anything illegal with the guns they own.
My own gun stays locked in a gun safe. I am the only one that knows the combo. I probably have not shot it in 5 yrs (when I took my 16 yr old daughter to the gun range).
I do not recall seeing any particular response though there was a lot of stuff that was TL;DR. But the question was sort of asked, so I will ask again.
Let’s say the right agrees to ban AR-15 style weapons and even goes as far as having them all gathered and melted down. Now let’s say that a semi-auto handgun becomes the new gun of choice for mass shooters. Then does the left go after those as well, or do they say, wow, the type of gun did not matter so I guess getting rid of scary guns did not work? Or as the right suspects, do they then want to put new restrictions on those as well?
Do you know what might facilitate a more productive conversation? You giving your side of the argument, then letting others give their own.
You may “hear” this, but is that because it is actually being said, or because this makes it easier to dismiss whatever is actually said?
Fair enough, and Scumpup concurs, with some caveats. Now, forgive me if I misread your earlier posts, but I believe that upthread you stated that nationwide CCW reciprocity was one thing on your wishlist that you wanted before you would consider a compromise. If this was implemented, what would you be willing to give up?
Ok, so if you advocate banning or reducing AR-15 style weapons, why?
I didn’t intend to portray nationwide CCW reciprocity as a prerequisite to compromise. For example, in post #110 I offered a compromise that had nothing at all to do with national CCW reciprocity. The list I gave in #118 are some ideas that liberals ought to be looking at that they can give gun owners in exchange for things they want, in a genuine compromise.
As for what I would be willing to give up, probably a fair bit, if some comparable exchange were offered. Ideas that come to mind: bump stocks, crank fire weapons, high-capacity magazines (which I probably define differently than Michael Bloomberg), bayonet lugs, grenade launchers … I don’t know what else. What would you like to see from your side?
Again, not to put words in your mouth, but would classifying all of these as Title 2 weaponry be acceptable to you? Because it would be acceptable to me.
My definition of a high-capacity magazine would be more than 7 rounds. Yours?
In exchange for the right amount of other stuff, perhaps, yes.
31+
You ready to talk on an informed basis about the NFA yet or are you too busy with whatever you call that?