Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Gun Control & RKBA

Showing Original Post only (View all)
 

PTWB

(4,131 posts)
Thu Dec 16, 2021, 01:36 PM Dec 2021

Compromising with gun owners is the ONLY feasible path to passing meaningful gun control [View all]

I apologize in advance as this will be a lengthy post. Much of this post comes from a reply another thread but I wanted to bring it here for further discussion.

We’re all Democrats here and most of us are logical, thoughtful people. Those of us who do own firearms and support the current interpretation of the 2nd Amendment (recognizing an individual right to keep and bear arms) also recognize that rights are not unlimited. We can both support the 2nd Amendment and advocate for common sense, effective gun control that doesn’t violate the 2nd Amendment and doesn’t violate due process.

My goal here is to create a discussion about how to formulate and pass meaningful gun control in today’s political climate.

The last decade should be a playbook of what not to do. Don't threaten mandatory gun buybacks, all out bans, registries, or anything else that will 1. not pass and 2. reduce the chance of passing anything else.

Forcing gun control legislation through sheer force of will and emotion is simply not going to work. If it was going to work, we would have passed something meaningful after Sandy Hook.

My proposal is to compromise with gun owners in order to pass meaningful gun control.

If we do not compromise with gun owners there is zero chance of anything passing until there is a seismic shift in the political climate.


Many of our gun laws are antiquated and ineffective. There are laws from the Prohibition Era that needlessly burden gun owners and add nothing to the general safety of society. There are scores of completely ineffective (from a public safety standpoint) gun laws on the books that are burdensome and loathed by the gun community.

Get rid of the laws that don’t work or don’t do anything to enhance public safety. Trade them for effective and modern gun control solutions that are relatively popular and will be more effective at saving lives. Meaningful gun control reform needs to work with, not against, gun owners.

There are numerous things that the gun community wants and would be willing to negotiate to obtain. These things include national reciprocity for concealed carry licenses, a revamp of the antiquated NFA registration system and modernizing what types of weapons must be registered. Some of the requirements are completely arbitrary.

For example, you can purchase a short-barrel AR-15 pistol with a brace that is essentially identical to a short-barreled rifle but does not require registration. For all intents and purposes, they're the same gun.

Another example is that you can purchase an AR-15 pistol and convert it into a rifle by adding a buttstock (assuming the barrel length is 16 inches or greater), but cannot purchase an AR-15 rifle and convert it into a pistol by removing the buttstock, even though in both configurations the firearm is identical in every way. The only difference is whether the box 'pistol' or 'rifle' was checked at the time of purchase.

These types of antiquated regulations do not enhance public safety and are simply annoying and burdensome to lawful gun owners. There is no reason to keep them so why not barter with them?


Minimum Standards for Concealed Carry Licenses

My proposal would be to add minimum standards (training, testing, background check, & set renewal periods) at the federal level for states to grant concealed carry licenses to residents. Any state that meets or exceeds those minimum standards would then enjoy national reciprocity for such licenses. We do the same thing with driver's licenses which is why your license in New York lets you drive in Florida, and vice versa.

Creating these national minimum standards two things: it raises the bar to get a concealed carry license and it protects licensed carriers in states that otherwise may not recognize their license.


Mandatory Safe Storage Laws

Mandate that guns must be kept in a secure, locked safe or facility that is inaccessible to minors or prohibited persons whether inside or outside the home, unless being actively carried by, or in the immediate control of, a licensee.


Universal Background Checks


Mandate that every gun transfer is subject to a background check, whether that transfer is through a dealer or a private party. We'd have to streamline this process for cases where a family member is inheriting a large number of firearms from a collector, for example, but it wouldn't be hard to do. This would eliminate the 'gun show loophole' and give us another effective tool to combat straw purchasing.

I'd also add more red flags for violent misdemeanors and give folks who are subject to those red flags a streamlined and free-of-charge process to dispute those flags. We want the red flags to be effective and comprehensive without violating due process.


Compromises to Achieve Universal Background Checks, Safe Storage Laws & Concealed Carry Minimum Standards

In exchange for the new gun control laws, I'd suggest removing sound suppressors from the NFA and treating them like firearms--subject to the now universal background checks. I'd also suggest rewording much of the language in the NFA to remove the ambiguity (the ATF currently defines a shoestring as a machine gun, sometimes, for example) and clarify exactly what constitutes a pistol, a rifle, any other weapon, and modernize the entire registration process for NFA items so that these things don't take over a year to register.

The minimum standards for concealed carry licensees inherently grants reciprocity, which is a big selling point. We get bonafide standards that must be met to carry a weapon and they get reciprocity.

I'd also change the $200 per NFA tax stamp to a one-time, lifetime, $200 NFA license tax. The current tax disproportionately negatively impacts minorities and the impoverished.

Some folks may balk at the delisting of suppressors from the NFA and of national concealed carry reciprocity, but I think they're reasonable bargaining chips and are worth trading for universal background checks, minimum standards for concealed carry, and mandatory safe storage.

At the end of the day, we'll have meaningful gun control and gun owners will be happier.

54 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
I would be happy if a law was passed that prohibits a round in the chamber. pwb Dec 2021 #1
As I read the original op I thought about the difference between Responsible Gun abqtommy Dec 2021 #3
If it's irresponsible to carry a round in the chamber, why does law enforcement do so? Dial H For Hero Dec 2021 #4
You are always looking for a fight. pwb Dec 2021 #7
I disagree with most on this forum on this particular issue, and am not hesitant to explain why. Dial H For Hero Dec 2021 #8
Yeah see, you are even against safety. pwb Dec 2021 #10
How is emphasizing the need for the 4 rules of gun safety against safety? Dial H For Hero Dec 2021 #11
I would walk out if someone suggested a round in the chamber. pwb Dec 2021 #12
Given that, there would be no point in you attending such a class, given that they almost Dial H For Hero Dec 2021 #13
Yeah I don't need any lessons. pwb Dec 2021 #14
The use of weapons in combat and the use of firearms in legal self defense have some overlap, but Dial H For Hero Dec 2021 #19
So why do you think that makes you special? oneshooter Dec 2021 #33
Who said I was special? You did. pwb Dec 2021 #39
Never said that you were "special". oneshooter Dec 2021 #40
And you think you are? pwb Dec 2021 #41
Never said or claimed that I was. oneshooter Dec 2021 #47
Never said or claimed that I was. oneshooter Dec 2021 #48
You assumed that I thought I was special. You said pwb Dec 2021 #49
I actually recommended that you *not* take firearms self defense lessons, if you'll recall. Dial H For Hero Dec 2021 #42
I don't need your recommendations. Thank you. pwb Dec 2021 #43
Just trying to help! Dial H For Hero Dec 2021 #44
I am just not ready for War a home. pwb Dec 2021 #45
Neither am I. War and legitimate self defense are two very different things. Dial H For Hero Dec 2021 #46
Haven't you heard? PTWB Dec 2021 #54
This message was self-deleted by its author oneshooter Dec 2021 #36
Here's a good debate about that topic. PTWB Dec 2021 #25
There's a legitimate debate to be had, but labeling anyone "irresponsible" and "unsafe" because they Dial H For Hero Dec 2021 #26
Certainly absurd. PTWB Dec 2021 #51
Would you please answer the question. oneshooter Dec 2021 #32
A thoughtful, reasonable proposal. On this forum, it will go nowhere. Dial H For Hero Dec 2021 #2
Interesting atreides1 Dec 2021 #5
You sound like Manchin Cartoonist Dec 2021 #6
OP has made some good points Ferryboat Dec 2021 #9
A reasonable person is supposed to compromise with this? AndyS Dec 2021 #15
Back again? PTWB Dec 2021 #16
It has only important thing you want. Good bye. AndyS Dec 2021 #17
Have a good one bud. PTWB Dec 2021 #18
I actually have come up with what I (humbly) think would be a reasonable compromise. Dial H For Hero Dec 2021 #21
I don't think anyone could argue against that. PTWB Dec 2021 #23
Thank you, but I'm confident that they can and will. The moment "assault weapons" are mentioned, Dial H For Hero Dec 2021 #27
Gunowners will not agree with ANY of this. EOM oneshooter Dec 2021 #35
On the whole I agree. It's simply a thought experiment. Both sides are far too entrenched for any Dial H For Hero Dec 2021 #37
You have some overblown/incorrect statements here: yagotme Dec 2021 #38
This is why any compromise legislation has an uphill fight. Hangingon Dec 2021 #50
No gun control advocate would disagree with any of these. Gun humpers have already Scrivener7 Dec 2021 #20
Gun control advocates certainly do disagree with the compromises listed at the end of the OP. Dial H For Hero Dec 2021 #22
Nonsense. PTWB Dec 2021 #24
LOL! Poor, poor gun humpers. Their rights are always being trampled, and we should offer them Scrivener7 Dec 2021 #28
What does this have to do with your first post in this thread? PTWB Dec 2021 #29
No, dear. You are using the disagreement in this thread to say, "See? They are terrible Scrivener7 Dec 2021 #30
I think you may be confused. PTWB Dec 2021 #34
See what I mean? Dial H For Hero Dec 2021 #31
Just being realistic... discntnt_irny_srcsm Dec 2021 #52
Because we all get what we want if we compromise in the ways I suggested. PTWB Dec 2021 #53
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Gun Control & RKBA»Compromising with gun own...»Reply #0