Bob Owens

The saddest truth in politics is that people get the leaders they deserve

What would gun control advocates be willing to give up in “compromise?”

Written By: Bob - Jul• 27•12

New York Senator Chuck Schumer attempted to sneak a gun control provision limiting magazine capacity into a cybersecurity bill last night, and then had the temerity to complain when exposed, “Maybe we could come together on guns if each side gave some.”

During the entirety of his long anti-gun career, neither Shumer nr his allies have voiced an interest in compromise when they felt they were dealing from a position of strength. At this moment in history, the anti-gun movement is on life support. We, the supporters of the Constitution, are in the position of strength.

Perhaps it is time for us to consider some of the compromises we might willing to make.

As self-appointed spokesman of all things ballistic and good, I offer Senator Schumer the following hypothetical compromises to consider with his gun-grabbing brethren:

  1. In exchange for adding flamethrowers to the items regulated by the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA 34), suppressors are to be removed entirely from the NFA. They are noise reduction devices with little actual use in crime, and are proven beneficial to social health, which is why they are encouraged even in firearms-averse European countries.
  2. In exchange for giving the Department of Justice the option to set up mobile National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) at at commercial gun shows for the voluntary use of sellers that do not have a FFL of their own, the often arbitrary local law-enforcement sign-off of NFA weapons will be discarded.
  3. In exchange for the creating of felony trafficking laws that make it easier for the federal government to prosecute arms smugglers for felonies and add additional years and fines to straw purchasing convictions, the so-called “Hughes Amendment” to the 1986 Firearms Owners Protection Act (FOPA) will be struck from the record, allowing those citizens willing to go through the established processes to own NFA-regulated firearms manufactured after 1986.

There are other compromises I would be willing to consider in an attempt to make “common sense” revisions to federal guns–perhaps the explicit outlawing of the massive 975 JDJ cartridge in trade for a federally recognized concealed carry permit– but first I’d be interested in discovering in anti-gun activists and politicians are interested in real compromise, or if they are just disguising their prohibitionist leanings during a time of weakness.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

15 Comments

  1. Goatroper says:

    Now, remember who you’re talking to. You’re using the wrong dictionary (the one most of the rest of us were taught to use). In Liberal parlance, “compromise” means “you give up your position and agree with us” on something.

    We already compromise by going through NICS and concealed carry permits for a guaranteed constitutional right. That’s too much compromise already.

  2. Sean says:

    Their idea of compromise is “we’ll take away your right and means to defend yourself and you’ll like it because we don’t care.”

  3. rick says:

    I’d give them two steps toward the door….

  4. Critch says:

    I wouldn’t give them the time of day…

  5. piotr1600 says:

    How about this: An actual psychiatrist (NOT a psychologist or other mental health worker) may place a “situational mental health hold” on firearms purchases in specific cases where they are seeing a patient that has committed or threatened violence, or is officially diagnosed with any of a number of serious mental health issues with a known pathology of likely violence when untreated, such as: paranoia, schizophrenia, certain types of dementia, etc.

    The “hold” would legally prevent the otherwise unadjudicated mentally ill from buying.

    This WOULD have prevented the Aurora shooter Holmes from arming himself legally.

    If the original or another psychiatrist becomes convinced that the patient is over a temporary condition, they can release the hold.
    The hold must legally be reviewed by a psychiatrist at a minimum of once per year.
    If the hold is not released within 5 years it becomes permanent. The patient has the right to appeal the decision and have a competency hearing in court, to attempt to force the release of the hold.

    If the hearing is won, the hold is removed. If it is lost, the patient is officially adjudicated as unable to posses firearms. Appeals are possible, no more often that once per year.

  6. emdfl says:

    Goatroper has it right, and piotr’s iidea is just another camel-nose.

  7. Kevin says:

    That seems like a very reasonable approach. Sadly that means it will never be acceptable to either side.

  8. Al Reasin says:

    The SCOTUS has ruled that the police do not have a duty to protect you and in all too many states you cannot defend yourself since owning or carrying a weapon is restricted; especially outside of your home. So given that, why should we/I ever agree to any compromise of my 2nd Amendment rights.

    I don’t, in principle, like the idea of the federal government getting more involved in the 2nd Amendment even to authorize a nationwide CCW. But the 2nd Amendment has now been “incorporated” by the SCOTUS, meaning to cover all states and local jurisdictions not just by the US government, so a case can be made that a national CCW law is constitutional.

    I thank the Senator for showing us that the Senate is supposed to be a secret society, in his and other’s minds, out of view of the voting public.

  9. Beatrice says:

    Once we cede (any/or part thereof) our “US Constitutional Rights = 2nd Amendment”, “We The People”, are doomed!

    Compromise = concession = an augmentation of the US Constitution. Accordingly, “We The People”, should refuse to budge!!

  10. Bob,
    There are some folks in media, especially talk radio, who have decided not to use the name of James Holmes when discussing the Aurora shooting, so as to deny him the fame they believe he sought, or should not receive in any event. Then too, there are many voices that claim that even though deranged, folk like Holmes or Loughner, somewhere in the dark precesses of their twisted minds, seek recognition and fame. The idea is that the big media may inadvertently be providing a motivation for such massacres. Remember Cho Seung-Hui’s (Virginia Tech shooter) manifesto that he sent to NBC News shortly before the slaughter he engaged in?
    So what if it were proposed that a law be written to address this, by requiring national news agencies not report on mass murder incidents beyond the local area. For example, a local Fox or NB News station could report on a mass murder, because of the potential impact on people in the area, but the national news could not do so. Surely it could be argued that this would prevent copy cats and deprive would-be mass murderers of an incentive to fame.
    Of course, this would no sooner be proposed than there would be hue and cry about First Amendment rights and the necessity of a free press, and the people’s right to know, and that even if such draconian and ill advised restrictions on liberty should reduce the likelihood of mass murder, we cannot sacrifice our liberties in such a way….er….oh!
    If you are willing to sacrifice the rights that others cherish but to which you are indifferent or even hostile, on what basis would you presume that the rights you hold sacred would or even should be left sacrosanct?

  11. SDN says:

    This column by datechguy lays it out quite well:

    We have reached the point from the legality of Gay Marriage in Massachusetts, to the Mayor of the largest city in the Commonwealth publicly declaring in effect: If your business dare oppose the liberal politically correct position , your enterprise doesn’t belong in our enlightened city.

    This has happened in the space of a decade, after being assured that “Gay Marriage” would have no effect on anyone else.

    So when you on the left tell us, assure us, and promise us that if we on the right agree to just a little bit of Gun Control, you have our word that we have no designs on your personal firearms or anything else, you’ll pardon us for declaring:
    You Lie!

    If we are stupid enough to believe you on gun control then we deserve to lose the rights we are fighting to defend.

  12. [...] Bob Owens wonders what gun control backers would be willing to compromise on [...]

  13. Brad says:

    A real life example of ‘compromise’ proposed by an anti-gunner in 2002

    I had a fascinating conversation with science-fiction writer David Brinn at a convention back in 2002 regarding gun-control. At the time I was arguing gun-control with a person from Canada, and Brinn decided to add in his two cents to the conversation with his proposal which he himself described as a compromise position.

    So what was it?

    Brinn proposed than in exchange for full-constitutional protection to keep and bear bolt-action rifles, that pro-gun people give in on everything else. Brinn explained the logic of his compromise was based upon his equation of modern bolt action rifles with revolutionary-era muskets. Some compromise, eh?

    When it comes to compromise, what an anti-gunner means is they only give up part of what they are trying to take away from the status-quo, and pro-gun forces get nothing in exchange. No give and take. Just partial take. Some compromise.

  14. Brad says:

    Gun-control forces have always had a mania for ‘gun-registration’. Of course what they really mean by registration is “strict-registration” such as the NYC Sullivan Law. Fine. But let’s make an offer to compromise based upon their public position as opposed to their real position.

    In exchange for formal de jure national registration of all handguns (as opposed to the de-facto registration that currently exists), such registration also functions a concealed carry permit for the weapon which is valid in all public places of the entire nation, with very limited exceptions such as public aviation, government buildings, etc.

  15. Joe Doakes says:

    The mental health component of mass shootings is the most troubling, and tools to manage that the most intriguing part of the conversation. Clayton Cramer has a new book about it “My Brother Ron,” it’s insightful. I’d give an inch in the medical privacy field to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill but by the time the President issued his “executive orders,” it would be a mile. Still, it’s worth considering. Regulate the nuts, not us gun nuts, as that’s where the real problem lies.