A Compromise Gun Control Bill I Can Live With

 

Covering for Glenn Beck the other day, Doc Thompson talked about the possibility of the GOP selling out on gun rights. He posted an e-mail exchange in which a high-level Congresscritter’s staffer said (in part):

So we’re going to stand up for our principles, but I don’t necessarily think that means refusing to do anything…This is just my hunch as a political hack, but I would guess there would be bipartisan, bicameral, in Congress for a bill addressing high-capacity magazines, mental health, enforcement of existing law, and making some tweaks to background check laws.

Normally I’m loathe to offer Leviathan any help whatsoever. But in this case, I believe we should propose our own gun control bill. Here’s my modest proposal . . .

  • Repeal the Brady Bill and do away with the NICS system entirely. It was supposed to keep felons from getting firearms but has failed miserably. The solution isn’t to “tweak” the cumbersome and expensive background check process. The answer is to get rid of it entirely.
  • Repeal the Hughes Amendment to the Firearm Owners Protection Act limiting ownership of full-auto weapons to those made prior to 1986.
  • In accordance with the 1968 amendments to the National Firearms Act, there will be a 90-day amnesty registration period every year, from January 1st through April 1st (or February 29th on leap years). The ATF will have 30 days to process any NFA transaction. Failure to complete a transaction in 30 days will result in the refund of all fees to the transferees and issuance of a default registration letter stating that the NFA items in question are legally possessed even if they are not entered in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record.
  • Any pilot or aircraft crew member who is an honorably discharged veteran or possesses a permit to carry from any state will be authorized to carry a firearm while in the air in any manner they deem fit.
  • Any schoolteacher, school employee or school volunteer who is an honorably discharged veteran or possesses a permit to carry from any state is authorized to carry a firearm in any school in any manner they deem fit. Any school district which is found in violation of this law shall forfeit all federal funds for a period of 6 months (for a first offense) and not less than 1 year for subsequent offenses.
  • Repeal the Gun Free School Zone Act of 1990.
  • Congress shall deem that Article IV Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution (commonly known as the full faith and credit clause) applies to state-issued permits to carry. Any state which fails to honor the permits of any other state shall forfeit all federal funds for a period of 6 months (for a first offense) and not less than 1 year for subsequent offenses.
  • In accordance with Coffin v. United States a person who is attacked in a place s/he has a right to be and who is not engaged in unlawful activity will have no duty to retreat and will have the right to meet force with force, including deadly force if s/he reasonably believes it is necessary in order to prevent death or great bodily harm to him/herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony and shall be presumed to have acted in self-defense until proven otherwise. Law enforcement may not arrest an individual for using deadly force unless they have probable cause to believe that the use of force was unlawful.
  • The definition of “sporting purposes” shall include all types of sport and competitive shooting and all “military style” and semi-automatic rifles, shotguns and handguns are hereby deemed suitable for sport shooting.
  • Any firearm or firearm accessory made by a private individual for their personal use will be beyond the authority of Congress under its constitutional power to regulate commerce among the states.
  • “High capacity” magazines will be defined as any ammunition feeding device designed to hold more than 150 rounds.
  • “Armor piercing” bullets will be defined as any round which, when fired from a pistol with a barrel of no more than 4 inches (not including recoil or sound suppressor) can pierce 1 inch of HY-100 steel (or its equivalent) at 200 yards.
  • Any business will have the right to exclude weapons from their premises and by doing so they accept strict liability for protecting their employees, customers and visitors.

It would be nice if we could get the ATF Reform and Modernization Act of 2009 passed too, but let’s not get greedy.

Anyway, this is my “good first step” bill to keep nut-jobs from murdering schoolchildren and movie-goers; and this time the Dems can “compromise” with our side for once.

avatar

About Bruce W. Krafft

I am a bit of a Johnny-come-lately to the civil rights (firearms flavor) movement, having not really gotten involved until after I hit 40. I am not really a "gun guy"; I can generally hit what I aim at, but I'm not a competitive shooter. I enjoy the craftsmanship of a fine pistol or rifle, but I am not particularly knowledgeable about firearms in general nor am I a Glock guy, or 1911 guy, I'm just a guy. What I am is passionate about civil rights, especially those of the firearm flavor.

175 Responses to A Compromise Gun Control Bill I Can Live With

    • avatarCasey T says:

      I have to put this up here because someone decided to embed a video somewhere in the comments. Please stop doing that because I can’t read half the comments or place a comment on the end because videos embedded in comments screw up viewing from mobile devices. Please stop doing that.

  1. avatarjwm says:

    Mostly agree. One tweak, constitutional carry for all citizens.

    • avatarMolon Labe says:

      +10

    • avatarCulpeper Kid says:

      Second Amendment rights that the people can not afford are rights denied! Surplus ammunition and magazines as well as semi auto firearms should be sold to the people at reduced prices through the existing Civilian Marksmanship Program (CMP).
      They want action on gun legislation? How about for a start, we implement National Concealed Carry, 50 state reciprocity. Then, we loosen up the regulations on sound suppressors, an environmental plus because it will reduce noise. Next, mandate federal funds for range construction. This will be a start, along with federal funding to assist local schools with training and hiring security for each and every school in the nation, the funds can come out of the TSA budget.

    • avatarSosalty Sosauty says:

      Our 2 party system is supposed to offer “The People” representation from the opposition. I’ve watched for decades 1 party disdainfully erode our constitional rights while our party defends, sometimes ineffectively our Bill of Rights. This is it Americans. The 2nd amendment is the last thread of what our Republic was founded on. Little is left of this Republic, we’ve now an elitist government just bidding their time to assert full control. This issure is the civil rights movement for this decade and the next. Fight; politiacally, flight; move to free states, and fraud; non-compliance in the sense of full blown ‘Civil Disobediance.’ There can be no compromise.

  2. avatarGyufygy says:

    Somehow, I think modest proposals regarding eating children are more likely to pass into law.

    • avatarNate says:

      Nice reference to Jonathan Swift.

    • avatarWilliam says:

      Nice point. Certain “folks”, to use the term advisedly, are already beginning to advocate legalizing the “abortion” of children three years of age or younger, i.e., defining them as identical to the unborn. So you were right on target.

      “GUN CONTROL?” WHAT gun control? WE DON’T WANT YOUR GUNS. (Joe Biden)

      You’re obviously distraught. Let me call someone for you.

      • avatarCA_Chris says:

        What people? The only time I’ve ever heard of such a suggestion was by anti-abortion groups trying to extend an argument to the point of absurdity. Without taking sides on the issue, let me just say that I don’t find extremes to be an effective means of making an argument in most cases, since such arguments are invariably 1-dimensional and ignore other obvious limitations.

  3. avatarCB Demented says:

    That works for me…

    But what’s wrong with the current definition on armor piercing rounds? What defensive purpose is there for a hard metal core round, especially considering the likelihood of blow through?

    • avatarNB says:

      generally it’s cheap military surplus designed to be fired from a rifle, but with rifle caliber pistols they decide to call it armor piercing pistol ammo and ban it.

    • avatarDarren says:

      The author’s point is that pretty much every rifle round, including your grandad’s .30-30, can defeat most soft body armor. Thus, every rifle round could be considered “armor piercing” and banned on that basis. Mr. Krafft’s proposal for piercing steel plate at 200 yards from a 4″ pistol is a standard that no pistol can match. It exceeds the NATO requirements for a PDW by roughly a factor of 4.

      Like most of the laws being proposed, it sounds like a reasonable specification that in fact is an unattainable standard.

  4. avatarRalph says:

    The second I saw the headline and Bruce’s byline, I knew what was coming. Way to go, BK! You never disappoint.

  5. avatarRKBA says:

    “there will be a 90-day amnesty registration period every year, from January 1st through April 1st (or February 29th on leap years).”

    That math does not work for me….

    • avatarRKBA says:

      So we’re all just going to over look the poor math and move on?

      JAN-FEB-MAR-APR except on leap years = JAN-FEB-APR ???

      • avatarAlphaGeek says:

        Dude, it’s a strawman proposal for discussion, not an actual bill being brought to committee. I’m sure a lot of people did the same thing I did, which was to note that you had a good point about the date error and move on to the next comment.

  6. avatarIntelligentThought says:

    You are so sick. You have no humanity in you. I’m sure you would like to go back to cowboys and Indian days. Draw partner. That’s what I’d like to see outside my schools, coffee shops, churches, and more. Don’t be such a fool. Extremist rhetoric like this is what pushes the other extreme to demand more. You can compromise or you will lose the fight. Right now, we wish to keep the second amendment. With more talk like this, the demand will be for a striking of the amendment. Is that what you want?

    • avatarDarren says:

      Your name. I do not think it means what you think that it means.

    • avatarTanner says:

      I think you dropped this:
      UN-

      That should fix that pesky misnomer.

    • avatarDyspeptic Gunsmith says:

      Some of would like to go back to those days… because those of us who know something about western history (because we live in the west and know the actual facts) know that the rate of violent crime in the 19th century American West was far lower than anything seen in modern American urban centers of 100K population or larger.

      The idea that the West used to be “all shootings, all the time” is yet more Hollywood mythology.

      • avatarSoftware Cowboy says:

        I am sure he has seen plenty of TV shows with no less than a shoot out per episode. He has also read that same stuff on the Internet. Now, you are going to burst his bubble and tell him that those things aren’t always accurate! Who is he supposed to believe, you or the people he has had spoon feeding him this “entertainment”? I know where I would place my bet.

      • avatar3inadime@100yd.s says:

        So right! Where is Bat Masterson when we need him? He could sway a gun control bill just by walkin into the room!

    • avatarMichael B. says:

      FOAD.

    • avatarLeo338 says:

      I happen to agree with this post. I also think this proposal is a bit extreme and would only serve to hurt our cause. I don’t understand the justification on repealing the NICS system entirely. Are you proposing to allow anyone to purchase a firearm without any type of check on them? I know criminals can manage to get guns anyway but lets not propose to allow them to purchase them at any local store. I also don’t see a self defense need for armor piercing rounds or a magazine or drum that holds 100 or more. I hope the anti’s don’t see this article, it will only allow them to claim that we are crazy, except this time with proof in the form of something we wrote ourselves.

      Perhaps I got the intention of this article entirely wrong? If that’s the case please forgive me.

      • avatarjwm says:

        leo338 and intelligent thought. It doesn’t matter what we say or do. The anti’s want our guns. Our EBR’s, our traditional hunting guns, our muskets. They want them all.

        And when have they ever compromised? They take one thing and tomorrow they want something else.

        So fuk them and their toadies.

      • avatarDavid-p says:

        Leo338 the one thing that is perfectly clear about this article is there is no grey area, unlike Feinstein’s ban. You said that there isn’t a need for armor piercing rounds but that depends on your definition of armor piercing. A 300 win mag can defeat most body armor, so does that mean that it is armor piercing? A 22 LR can penetrate car doors, is it armor piercing? What about a 223 but I have a t/c handgun is this armor piercing? This article gives a clear definition of what armor piercing is! No need to worry about further debate.

        I agree with you that we shouldn’t make it easy for a criminal to get a gun but we shouldn’t make it hard for a citizen to get one either. If we have the NICS system then why do I still have to go to an ffl. The state has my name and my address and as long as everything matches why can’t I order a gun online and have it shipped to my house requiring a signature? Are you saying an ffl is more capable of calling a phone number than me to get a “go” “no” or “hold” message before ordering a gun?

        As for the high capacity mag issue. When law enforcement agencies(local, state, and federal) say okay “x” number of rounds in a magazine is all we need then we will talk about it. Law enforcement is said to be better trained, better shots, more controlled, and arrive to a situation with backup behind them- why do they need a bigger magazine then me?

        • avatarCA_Chris says:

          Also, the laws against armor piercing rounds exist only to protect government agents against civillian armaments. The point of the 2nd Amendment (ok, one of several points) is that the government serves the people, and the people require the means to defend against the rise of tyranny within their government.

      • avatarChris Mallory says:

        “Are you proposing to allow anyone to purchase a firearm without any type of check on them?”

        Yes, what part of “shall not be infringed” do you not understand?
        If a person cannot be trusted with a weapon, then they cannot be trusted to walk the streets.

        • avatarelnonio says:

          Chris: Fatal fallacy in your argument. You say “If a person cannot be trusted with a weapon, then they cannot be trusted to walk the streets.” Your argument assume (incorrectly) that all untrustworthy individuals are already behind bars. Even a hardened criminal had a clean record: before the first arrest, if nothing else.

          Just because a person walks the streets does not mean they are trustworthy. It makes no sense to take away NICS. In fact, in my view, the only way to protect law abiding citizens from unknowingly selling firearms to criminals or other predators is to require all transfers to undergo a background check. All of them.

          Now notice I didn’t say that you should have to use an FFL to process the transaction. With today’s technology, we should be able to call in personally or access a website to do the background check on your potential buyer. As a seller, I know I would want to ensure my buyer is not buying to circumvent the background check, for I would not want to sell to a prohibited person.

        • avatarSivartius says:

          elnonio, a background check would not catch the violent criminal before their first conviction either. And remember that an essential piece of freedom is that every person is presumed innocent until proven guilty. The idea behind a background check is that every person is guilty until proven innocent.

        • avatarelnonio says:

          Sivartius: “a background check would not catch the violent criminal before their first conviction either.”

          I know. See first paragraph. However, doing what Chris proposes (doing aways with all background checks) ensures that even those with convictions would be able to obtain firearms without worries from any source willing to sell to them. Hard for me to support that.

          The ONLY place where there is a presumption of innocence is a court room. That’s it. A background check is an administrative procedure, not a legal proceeding. You have administrative remedies in an administrative proceeding if you feel wronged, but the outcome of an administrative proceeding is much less serious than the outcome of a legal proceeding, no comparison.

        • avatarHSR47 says:

          @elnonio:

          A better phrasing of the sentiment Chris tried to express is: “If a man cannot be trusted with a firearm, then he cannot be trusted without a custodian.”

          Sure, we can go back and forth about what constitutes a custodian, and whether there are cases where such a custodianship might only be partial or include discretion on the part of the custodian, but that’s largely irrelevant to this discussion.

          Just understand that he means that it is amoral to convict a man, lock him up for a period of time (supposedly to rehabilitate him), but still declare the he will forever be forced to live as a second-class citizen, never again to regain the full exercise of his fundamental rights. In short, the sentiment that Chris and I express is that, if a man is so dangerous that he may never be trusted to act in a socially acceptable manner, why bother ever letting him out of prison? For that matter, why even bother with incarceration?

          We can also look at it a different way: If we legislate ex-cons into a condition of second-class citizenship (where they can’t get many good jobs, can’t live certain places, and can’t exercise certain of their fundamental rights), as we do now, what incentive do we give them to act in a socially acceptable manner upon release? In my experience, people often tend to live up to our expectations, be those expectations good or bad.

          Also, as for this: “Your argument assume (incorrectly) that all untrustworthy individuals are already behind bars.”

          The fact remains that, while there may be plenty of people whom I do not trust with a firearm, their right to own firearms should not be infringed until it can be proven that they have indeed broken the law. It’s that pesky “innocent until proven guilty in a court of law” thing.

          Sure, we may all know that someone is dirty as sin, but unless we can PROVE it, we have no moral justification to deprive a man of his rights

          “Just because a person walks the streets does not mean they are trustworthy. It makes no sense to take away NICS.”

          More people are murdered with hammers and/or clubs than are murdered with rifles, yet I don’t see anyone demanding that we require a background check to buy a hammer (or are they doing that now in that place where England used to be?). Seriously, if we continue down this road we are on now, sooner or later we will end up needing a background check to purchase just about anything. Before 1934, you could mail order a submachinegun from Sears, and yet such firearms were rarely used in crime — our perception of them as being commonly used in crime is largely a fiction created by Hollywood (much like the supposed “wild west” is a similar fiction).

          “Now notice I didn’t say that you should have to use an FFL to process the transaction. With today’s technology, we should be able to call in personally or access a website to do the background check”

          I understand where you’re going with this, and I don’t wholly disagree with you. That said, the justification for requiring shipments go through an FFL is that they need to confirm that you are who you say you are — the government is using the FFL to determine that the person at the counter is the same person for whom records are being pulled. Thus, there really isn’t a way to allow mail ordering of firearms without the use of an intermediary (as we could do before the 1968 GCA) while while mandating background checks for all buyers.

          That all said, I see no reason NOT to have a system set up to so that ordinary citizens could run a simple criminal background check on a person they are considering selling a firearm to: Even if it were legal to sell to a convicted felon, I’d rather NOT be the one who does it, unless I know the person well enough to be able to trust them to use it responsibly.

        • avatarelnonio says:

          HSR47: It’s relatively easy to determine the state of the law. But when it comes to morality and ethics, no one has a monopoly on deciding what is moral or not.

          In the Marine Corps, we often say “trust but verify”. I think it applies here. Sure, a person may have served his time. Under your argument, once he is out, he has paid his debt to society. Yet we know that recidivism exists, and we also know that while some convicts will drag themselves out of the hole (and become productive members of society), others will continue to dig deeper (more crime at best, more serious crimes at worst).

          By putting these lessons learned together, I reach the conclusion that while a person may have served his sentence, figuring out who has been rehabilitated, who will be fully rehabilitated but requires an adaptation period, and who is beyond rehabilitation, is a difficult task. That is why we not only have prisons, but also parole systems. Once you have broken society’s trust, don’t expect to be treated on par with law abiding citizens until you have shown that you can be trusted by your positive actions over time, not just by serving your prison sentence (hint: you’re not there voluntarily, shows no intent to rehabilitate). Over time, you then can regain those rights forfeited by your deeds.

          Legislating cons into second class citizenship? Not exactly. We don’t need laws to do that. Case in point: are you going to take a chance and hire as a babysitter a convicted pedophile, who has done his time and repaid his debt? How long from date of release would you wait?

          As for the FFL thing, I should have pointed out that I was referring to intrastate transfers.

          You say “The fact remains that, while there may be plenty of people whom I do not trust with a firearm, their right to own firearms should not be infringed until it can be proven that they have indeed broken the law. It’s that pesky “innocent until proven guilty in a court of law” thing.” In addition to what I already said about the presumption of innocence (legal v. administrative settings), how can you ascertain whether someone has in fact broken the law before making the sale of a firearm. That’s what we are talking about here (at least I am, in response to those that say to do away with NICS). That has nothing to do with presumed innocence or guilt.

          Reread the exchange above in Chris’ post:

          LEO338: “Are you proposing to allow anyone to purchase a firearm without any type of check on them?”

          Chris: Yes, what part of “shall not be infringed” do you not understand?

          So, you would sell the firearm first, let the buyer on his merry way, only to then run the check and discover he is a prohibited person? From your standpoint, he may have repaid his debt. From mine, trust but verify.

      • avatarCA_Chris says:

        There is no special property to the materials and design of a 100-round magazine or an armor piercing round that can be defined and legislated away. The design difference between a 10-round magazine and a 100-round magazine is really just volume, and no additional materials are needed for a 100-round magazine than would be used in 10 10-round magazines. An armor piercing round is likewise made from common materials and contains no magic or difficult to obtain substances.

        These things can be manufactured completely outside of the reach of the law, so then the question is do we want to create economic incentives to establish a more significant firearms black market in the US, guaranteeing that firearms are manufactured and marketed to criminals for use against an unarmed population?

        And let me preempt the “nuclear” argument. No, you cannot easily obtain the materials for a nuclear bomb, or even a dirty radioactive conventional bomb. Nor is the process for creating such a device within the means of your average hobby machinist. Nor is any nuclear device inert, the process of nuclear fission being one that is constantly occurring once started and is relatively easily detected, and nuclear devices are inherently hazardous even (and especially) when not subjected to intentional human action.

        In contrast, a gun emits no radiation and does not cause injury, harm, or damage until subjected to external forces, and in the case of supposedly dangerous modern sporting rifles that firearm will not discharge until the trigger is intentionally pulled (even if negligence is involved). This is exactly the same level of hazard posed by a properly parked and unoccupied vehicle.

      • avatarHal says:

        LEO###, I am a LEO and when I read this I see the words of a man who will gladly go door to door confiscating arms the moment daddy tells him to. FO.

        • avatarBrad says:

          Ditto Hal – 18 years on my end.

        • I’ve got experience in the same as well. I’ve been following more and more online the fights going on in the intarwebz. Unfortunately, there are a significant amount of people that are not only uneducated on the topic but worse, are willfully ignorant.

    • avatarPaul says:

      Or, put another way, we can compromise, and compromise, and compromise some more. The left/anti-gunners proposals are ALL outrageous. It’s time we took a stand. You need to think about this a bit more, sir.

    • avatarRKBA says:

      (Un)IntelligentThought:

      Even striking the Second Amendment out of existence would not change a single thing.

      The Second Amendment, part of the Bill of Rights, does not grant any person any rights, it simply acknowledges our ‘self evident, inalienable, God given rights as human beings.’

      So, go ahead, strike them all, as you wish (and I am sure you do). You can kill the messenger, but not the message.

    • avatarWilliam says:

      Said the Arbiter of Humanity. HERE’S A HINT, dippy: IT AIN’T YOU.

    • avatarNeonCat says:

      Every time we are told that what is desired are reasonable restrictions, commonsense decisions, that compromise is required, what one actually sees is that those doing the speaking do not want compromise, their restrictions are not reasonable and if you disagree with them you do not have common-sense so you MUST be a crazy person.

      Our right to keep and bear arms was whittled away for many years in the name of compromise – and it still wasn’t enough for the antis. It is only with Supreme Court decisions like Heller and McDonald, as well as the sunsetting of the Assault Weapons Ban, that the tide turned.

      So, no, IT, we are not for compromise. The demand has been there for years to abolish the Second Amendment. We have seen once proud and free peoples like the Britons disarmed – a little compromise at a time – and care not for what we see. We wish to remain citizens, not subjects. If that frightens you, if you worry about what They will say about firearms, including yours, if you happen to own any, perhaps you should take a look at nations – even previously democratic ones – where the populace is disarmed, where the government has all the guns. In the best case, criminals have guns and use them against the law-abiding. In the worst case, the government is criminal (or even worse, believes they are improving the people for the glorious future) and the subjects live in terror.

      To hell with what They say.

      The Second Amendment has one purpose: it provides the final check on governments gone criminal by ensuring the citizens can literally fight it if necessary. I pray to God it never comes to that, but if it does the citizens will have scary black rifles to fight back with, not “sporting guns”. Frankly, I sleep easier at night knowing that this is so and that the fact that the citizens have scary black rifles makes it much more unlikely that the 2nd will have to be used for it’s purpose.

      If this is not the case for you, there are many fine “gun-free zones” in major cities across the country that you could move to. Relax in the safety of your own delusions, no one will harm you and They will welcome you.

    • avatarSanchanim says:

      @IntelligentThought
      First off I think you should spend some time and read Bruce’s other posts. they are very insightful on the second amendment and the constitution.

      As far as I know murder is illegal in this country, and will continue to be so. I don’t think anyone wants that law repealed.

      The idea of getting rid of “gun free zones” is not new, nor extreme. We know they do not work. I won’t bore the other readers listing all of the shootings which took place in gun free zones.

      Arming school faculty is also not new. Israel has done it with great success. So has Texas, and Utah. No problems so far.

      His demands for repeal of the NFA, and other items like NICS is because at their base they are unconstitutional. I will give you that stopping NICS probably isn’t going to happen, but we can “compromise” when the time comes. Also the NICS system is overloaded, way behind. Thousands of convicted criminal buy guns in stores every year, because there is a massive backlog on updating their database. So everyone follows the law and they still get a gun. If you want an NICS system you need to fix it so it runs properly.

      His definition of sporting events is a valid one. 3Gun which is a sporting event is not defined as such. It should be.

      I would be willing to “compromise” on high capacity magazines. I would drop from 150 to anything over 100.

      Armor piercing bullets is a legitimate one. His idea is based more off of what the military considers armor piercing, not the so called civil definition, which changes like the whether, so I am fully comfortable with this request. This idea is because most people have no clue on ballistics, or armor. LEO’s wear very light weight armor compared to our military. There is no such thing as a bullet proof vest. Only bullet resistant. It doesn’t matter which grade we are talking about.

      Home manufacturing falls outside the realm of most state or federal jurisdiction anyways, but this would simply set the precedent.

      To nationalize reciprocity for concealed carry makes a heck of a lot of sense. There are people who have to keep licenses for multiple states, which is silly. One license should cover everywhere. You can standardize requirements, training etc. It is all about safety isn’t it?

      Pilots are allowed to carry now, however I do not know what the requirements are. This simply sets a precedent for equality among all pilots, and airlines.

      Many states have stand your ground or castle laws on the books now. Unfortunately it has not been implemented in a uniform manner. This will do that, and provide equality, and equal precedent among all citizens. I think that is fair. It also means that the courts will have greater precedent, and refinement on the law when dealing with cases. This is a good thing, as it helps everyone.

      Any private business has a right to be a gun free zone if they choose to be. This however means they also need to ensure the safety of their employees and patrons. I find this rather reasonable, don’t you?? We all want to go out and have a safe enjoyable experience where ever that may be.

      Right now there is NO conversation on gun control. It is a lecture. States are throwing legislation out there that is ill conceived, poorly written, vague, and it helps no one. Many bills recently submitted are clearly unconstitutional on many levels, yet they are throwing them out there. Bruce’s post is not that extreme, and as you can clearly see, I am ready to compromise.

    • avatarJohn says:

      Who is this ‘we’ that ‘wishes’ to keep the Second Amendment, by the way?

      Did it ever occur to you that in those places that allow (acknowledging that government cannot ‘allow’ a citizen to exercise a civil right, but that’s another story) citizens to be secretly armed in public, none of what you fear has happened? Is it just wildly possible that fewer people are endangered in those communities by criminal activity as the criminals fear that their next victim, or that victim’s friend, or the stranger standing nearby, just might be armed? Could it be that our relatively safe CC communities would be awash in criminal violence (such as is Chicago, NYC, Detroit, Baltimore, DC, and many others where firearms are prohibited in great measure) if severe firearm restrictions were enacted therein?

      Naaah. It’s all a dweam wifin a dweam, Bishop.

    • avatarRandy Drescher says:

      I had some humanity & then I read your post. Where do you guys come from, Mars or Uranus? Yes, I wish to keep the 2nd, try & take it, Randy

    • avatarJeff O. says:

      Yes. Actually going back to the days of cowboys and indians would be fine.

      The Old West wasn’t really all that “wild.”

      9/10ths of the “wild” is Hollywood fiction, which is why I’m completely fine with going back to those days.

    • avatarScott Henrichs says:

      compromise? We did compromise and ended up with the Brady bill, the Hughs amendment and the AWB. NONE of those things did a damn thing to reduce crime. Now you want to try banning scary looking guns again because if was so ineffective the last time. Your side wants to push so we are pushing back. How about you realize that you have reached the limit. Continue trying to push and we will push back HARD. Shall not be infringed. Remember that. Keep pushing and we will demand all unconstitutional laws be repealed.

    • avatarJohnny Geetar says:

      No, we AIN’T going to compromise, and that ‘s that, I.T. Wanna know WHY? Because the 2nd Amendment SAYS we don’t HAVE to. “Not to be INFRINGED!” I fail to see the ambiguity in that. If they try to rescind that, it will be illegal. Maybe YOU are afraid of offending these sensitive, limpwristed Marxists, but you speak for yourself.
      The framers wrote the 2nd amendment in Ironclad and irrefutable language FOR A REASON! To make the right to bear arms unassailable from future federal meatsockery. Kinda like NOW.
      Now for the math. Behold; 125 MILLION of us, with about 325 MILLION firearms at our disposal, and 10′s of BILLIONS of rounds of ammo on hand by the citizenry. They? Optimistically, about 2 million heads nationwide, and with recently publicized ammo purchases, about roughly 4-5 billion rounds of ammo on hand. OOPS! Guess who LOSES and LOSES BIG in this scenario? Hint; NOT US. 10 million of America’s gun owners are hunters, which is a nice way of saying snipers. Federal employees are outnumbered 5 to 1 by snipers ALONE COMING OUT OF THE GATE. You think we care if these ballbags take offense to our comments? Think again….
      Mind you, this is not bravado or internet bravery. It’s simple math, and 100 to 1 odds AGAINST disarming us is suicide to initiate. Yamamoto knew it! So did Breshnev and Kruschev. But I suppose math was never a strongsuit of the Obama administration’s………..let em come! They will learn the hard way I guess……

    • Unfortunately you need to study the Constitution, learn the ways of gun culture and get properly educated in order to have an intelligent conversation on the topic. Let’s start there. Come back when you’re ready.

      To the OP – Yes, I would add Constitutional Carry to it as well.

    • avatarSosalty Sosauty says:

      Intell thought, don’t be upset, but there’s no Santa.

    • avatarCassandra (of Troy) says:

      (Pseudo-)IntelligentThought/3Jan2013@16:21,

      Your tantrum is exactly what the anti-2A/pro-thug cult said (& still says) about concealed carry reform & despite the blatantly obvious FACT that NONE of their “reasonable, common sense” predictions have come true refuses to admit that they were at best wrong & at worst cynical liars & neither are they in the slightest willing to compromise about ‘Castle Doctrine’ or ‘Stand Your Ground’ legislation. Be advised that the anti-2A/pro-thug cult in concert with pro-thug groups also opposed ’10-20-Life/Use A Gun & You’re Done’ & ’3 Strikes’ in Calif & to this day HAVE NOT admitted that they were wrong to do so, they won’t even admit that they EVER opposed either legislation even though their members were (& still are) prominent supporters of the orgs dedicated to the repeal of both laws & despite the FACT that both laws have demonstrated their effectiveness as violent crime reduction/prevention measures.

      Interesting thing is that 6 months after both went into effect the violent crime rate in Calif dropped DRAMATICALLY with gun involved crime showing the steepest decrease, & the ‘sweetener’ is that the states around Calif (WA, OR, NV, AZ, NM) who didn’t have those laws saw a rapid INCREASE in their violent & gun involved crime rates due to criminals fleeing Calif’s ‘harsh’ new statutes for places that were ‘easier’ to do ‘business’ in. Yes indeed, our neighbors were mighty upset about that lil’ ‘unintended consequence’ & REALLY resented having to go thru all the bother of passing similar legislation, & the anti-2A/pro-thug cult & its pro-thug fellow travelers were front & center to oppose those measures as well using the same arguments they used in Calif. And here you are doing the same thing.

      How ‘coincidental’.

  7. avatarSanchanim says:

    Sounds reasonable to me I tell ya!
    You are right though it is a starting point.

  8. avatarTanner says:

    Bravo, Bruce. I was worried when you said you were ready to compromise, but I should have known better. I wish I could bring you to a family reunion sometime, my anti-aunts would lose their minds.

  9. avatarFlexo says:

    Comedy at it’s finest. Not one of those proposals would stand a chance of passage in a federal bill?

    • avatarSanchanim says:

      No probably not but if that was our stance any major compromise would keep things at the status quo, get it??

  10. avatarjkp says:

    I completely disagree with the exception you’re carving out for veterans. Military service may indeed be worthy of honor, but you can’t tell me that someone who served as a DMCCC in a silo in North Dakota, somehow has access to any special firearm knowledge or training over a civilian.

    Military service should not be a ticket into a separate legal class, above and beyond civilians.

    • avatarBill says:

      We don’t. Just that some idiot’s think that a lot of us have special powers to wield “the rifle.”

      But that isn’t the point of this write-up.

    • avatarChris Mallory says:

      I am a “citizen”, not a “civilian”. Sounds like you need to change the paradigm of your mind.

    • avatarYette-Man says:

      Veterans also go out through thorough background checks(many that include records that get sealed for offenses committed as a minor) and have a stricter set of laws/ mental health checks that are documented while in service. Not to mention that the average veteran/ military member is willing to fight for others protection/rights. Why shouldn’t someone coming out with an honorable discharge be put on a higher level in regards to carrying firearms. If a civilian/citizen with no military record can pass those checks, put them in the same level.

  11. avatarBill says:

    I like the idea behind this. (I also believe all of them too). Rather than the crazy antis make wild demands and expecting us to compromise, we should make our own and just as bold so they have to compromise with us.

  12. avatarEric says:

    It’s not that I disagree with any of your points, but how can you call this “compromise”? Most of those items are an *expansion* of current rights.

    • avatarDyspeptic Gunsmith says:

      It’s just as worthy of the appellation as their proposals, which are also no “compromise.”

      The gun grabbers are the ones who changed the definition of the word. We’re just using it in the same way they are.

    • avatarNick says:

      That’s the point, Eric. It’s turning the antis’ logic around on them. They always put out a bill that takes away a lot of rights, and expect us to “compromise” by letting them take away some of them. That makes about as much sense as compromising with someone who wants to cut your arm off by letting them cut off your hand.

      • avatarEric says:

        That may be a psychologically comforting exercise, but might it not be more productive to offer actual, reasonable proposals for improved regulations?

        I’m in favor of additional laws requiring guns to be locked up. Most of us already use safes anyway, but strict adherence to physically securing our weapons should reduce availability of guns for criminals.

        • avatarDonS says:

          “I’m in favor of additional laws requiring guns to be locked up. Most of us already use safes anyway, but strict adherence to physically securing our weapons should reduce availability of guns for criminals.”

          It would also reduce their availability for self defense.

          Some of my firearms are locked in a safe – but only a) to somewhat deter theft and b) because the safe is a convenient place to store them. Some of my firearms (e.g. Glock 27, SW1911, XM15-E2S) are most ceratinly not “locked up”, because I want them available at all times.

        • avatarChris Mallory says:

          You stay out of my house and I will stay out of yours.

        • avatarBruce says:

          And a good gun safe is expensive. Which could put the cost of a weapon out of reach for many.

        • avatarJohnny Geetar says:

          Lock em up by law? OK; tell me how that works out for you at 3 in the morning from a DEAD sleep when your dogs are going nuts and you hear glass breaking downstairs. Oh, and by the by, the wife just washed your pants with the safe key in it and forgot to tell you……..
          Balls! I keep a chambered AK-47 M-10 with coupled Bulgarian 40′s next to the bed. Home is bermed on 3 sides, so stray rounds are not an issue. I do not overly fear 1 intruder. However, my concern leaps immeasurably when one considers 2 or 3 or MORE armed ballbags breaking into a house full of pretty women. Now THAT, I fear! No margin for error or failure there, i’m afraid. MOST home invaders will brandish pistols for convenience. If someone breaks in I want them outgunned QUICKLY. And I need something that will penetrate 5/8 subflooring with ease. So, HP is not on my menu either. I could care less about holes in the walls. That’s what spackle and paint are for. MY job is to keep ALL ballbags on the first floor, and OFF of the 2nd floor. What I have upstairs sleeping is irreplacable. I’ll be DAMNED if i’m locking ANYTHING up. Talk about margin for error……..

          A final thought. With our debt load and irresponsible mass money printing, HONEST economists are now definitively saying that it is a mathematical certainty that the dollar WILL falter. There is NO stopping it now, and NO course we can take to prevent it. The piper MUST be paid. Sometime possibly in the VERY near future. Unfortuately with this scenario, home invaders will become not only more professional but significantly more prevalent. Many will have the foresight to begin wearing kevlar. And why not? You can pick up used stuff like kevlar vests online for as little as $150 bucks. They will also begin hunting in groups to ensure greater success.
          In a worst-case scenario with multiple, armed, kevlar-wearing intruders, a 9 mil in the bedside drawer AIN’T gonna do it. Before you deem me crazy for having a cannon by my bedside, consider what our VERY near future could hold. I would urge all to re-evaluate what sits by your bedside. Again, in a worst case scenario, you get ONE chance to have what you need handy. No do-overs per incident, OR sadly, per result……..

    • avatarCW says:

      Because this gets us back in-line with our constitutionally protected privileges as American citizens. Why should we compromise/give away our ability to protect our natural rights of liberty & property.

      My suggested 3 step process for addressing the declining gun violence in this great nation:
      Short Term) If we absolutely must pass some knee-jerk bill, offer a tax deduction or rebate for the purchase qualified gun safes (up to $200-300 would be adequate). This is the only immediate, short-term step which could have prevented or mitigated.

      Medium-Long Term) Address the socio-economic and systemic cultural issues which lead to crime in general. This includes eduction, revamping of the mental health institutions & protocols, scrapping the failed war on drugs & instituting addiction treatment centers, expanding outreach and community building programs, etc.

      Short, Medium & Long Term) Encourage, promote, educate, train and equip good, willing people with weapons. Expand the CMP, implement free training programs, expand and expose more youths to firearms through training. LaPierre was very correct – the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.

      • avatarAJ says:

        “Because this gets us back in-line with our constitutionally protected privileges as American citizens.”

        Easy there sparky – priveleges are granted. The constitution protects our rights, at least it’s supposed to.

    • avatarWilliam says:

      Nice to see you found the light switch.

  13. avatarAlphaGeek says:

    When it comes time to compromise, I suggest that our give-back be limiting high-cap feeding devices to 100 rounds. Because we have to be sensible and reasonable about this whole thing, and there must be room for negotiation.

    • avatarSanchanim says:

      Of course AG, sensible negotiation right?

      • avatarAlphaGeek says:

        Of course.

        Since we’ll be discussing firearms policies, the terms of the negotiation are that everyone at the negotiating table gets to carry any firearm they’ve qualified with, by any reasonable standard – NRA, USPSA, state CCW test, whatever. Seems sensible to me.

    • avatarphillium says:

      You would let belt fed guns be excluded from such restrictions, right?

      • avatarAlphaGeek says:

        For the avoidance of doubt, I wasn’t seriously proposing 100 rounds as a give-back point for compromise. Capacity limits are ridiculous, full stop.

        They’re also, if you’ll excuse the pun, self-limiting. The more ammo in a single “feeding device” (i.e. box of linked rounds) the heavier and bulkier it’s going to be. Good luck surprising anyone with a belt-fed anything mounting a 200-round box.

        • avatarAccur81 says:

          I used to huck around an M249 Saw with a 200 round chain – linked box. It wasn’t exactly svelte, but I could outrun a lot of fat cops today while carrying that thing.

        • avatarAlphaGeek says:

          Yeah, but unless you’ve ballooned since your avatar pic was taken, you’re still not exactly shaped like some of your fellow patrol officers, are you? :)

          In any case, I was thinking of situations where anything that slowed down the shooter’s weapons handling and movement would be a Very Good Thing. If some jackhole perp wants to cripple his ability to slew an AR-class rifle around expeditiously because he’s loaded it down with one of those stupid-looking lopsided Beta mags, who am I to argue?

      • avatarSanchanim says:

        Of course we are only talking about magazines and clips. So that belt fed mini gun of yours is safe!

      • avatarjwm says:

        So what if the belt is limited to 100 rounds? Just link 2 belts together. As long as you can show that they’re 2 seperate belts temporarily linked, no harm, no foul.

        • avatarAlphaGeek says:

          Actually, no. That’s manufacturing a high-capacity ammunition feeding device. Instant felony.

          If you (a CA resident) owned a 100-round linked belt of, say, 7.62×51 before all the bans started, you’re good to go on shooting the whole thing and relinking it with 100 fresh rounds as many times as you please.

          If you happened to mix your regular links in with some spares and inadvertently made a 101-round belt, that’s manufacturing and it’s a felony here in CA.

          True story. Wish I were making this up.

        • avatarjwm says:

          I wish you were making it up to. But I haven’t any reason to doubt your honesty, AG.

  14. avatarOK S. says:

    On your last point:

    Any business will have the right to exclude weapons from their premises and by doing so they accept strict liability for protecting their employees, customers and visitors.

    Businesses who allow juveniles unaccompanied by their parents or guardians on the premises should not be allowed to declare themselves a “Gun Free Zone.” Adults have a right to endanger their own lives, but juveniles frequently lack the maturity to determine or assess the risks. Their risky behaviour is well-documented.

  15. avatarMike in NC says:

    Now this is my idea of “common sense” gun control! Thank you, Bruce.

    Minor detail: the GFSZA of ’90 did not survive SCOTUS. The version on the books now dates to ’95.

  16. avatarJoshinGA says:

    Could we find a member of Congress that is pro-gun and ballsy enough to sponsor a bill with wording like this in it? That would be prime, and would probably cause quite a few antis to soil their undergarments.

  17. avatarDoug says:

    “Any business will have the right to exclude weapons from their premises and by doing so they accept strict liability for protecting their employees, customers and visitors.”

    Absolutely not. Businesses are private property, and their owners’ rights aren’t trumped by yours. If they wish to not allow weapons on their property, that’s their choice. YOUR choice is not to go/work there. If you enter a business that doesn’t allow guns and you disarmed yourself to enter it, YOU made the decision that going there was worth disarming yourself. If you work there, YOU made the decision that working there was worth doing so unarmed.

    These attempts at making businesses liable for attacks that happen on their premises if they don’t allow weapons is YOU (plural) trying to use the FORCE OF GOVERNMENT to FORCE businesses to adopt policies you like. You know for a fact that a coffee shop can’t afford armed guards, so you know that under a law like that they’d be FORCED to allow people to be armed in their establishment. You are trying to curtail the property rights of business owners and that is NOT ok.

    Here in WV, the law is on the right side of it. Business owners can disallow weapons in their businesses, but no-gun signs don’t have force of law. If you carry anyway, it’s not a crime. But, if they realize you’re carrying, they can kick you out for it. That’s the way it should be. Just like no shirt/no shoes or any other dress codes or policies that private businesses have.

    Stop trying to use the force of government to coerce other people to do what you want with their property. If you disarm to enter an establishment, you know the risks, the business should not be held liable if a criminal commits a crime in their gun-free zone.

    Oh but I do support eliminating all gun-free zones on public property to include court houses, capital buildings, parks, schools etc.

    • avatarjwm says:

      doug, does a private business have the legal right to post a sign saying, “No Blacks” or “No Jews” or “No Muslims”. If I’m exercising my legal and civil right to carry a gun what right does a public business have to bar me from entry?

      Now if the business wants to put a no gun clause on their employees, I don’t like the idea, I see that as their right. Just as you have the right not to work there.

      • avatarSanchanim says:

        In all fairness I do see Doug’s point. On the same token I also understand how we are being discriminated against as well.
        Maybe it goes like he says. You can carry, and get kicked out, but signs do not mean you are breaking the law. If you conceal carry, then they shouldn’t see you are armed anyways right?
        And if there was a confrontation with a bad guy and you were forced into a DGU, the use of a gun would not be a crime.
        But as you know we are willing to compromise right?

        • avatarAccur81 says:

          I agree with Doug as well. Freedom isn’t crammed down people’s throats, and property owner’s have rights as well.

      • avatarEric says:

        There is no such thing as a “public business”. Just as you want the government to stay out of your life, businesses on private property are free to enact whatever policies they like.

        There are a few specific exceptions to that, and they’re the race and gender-based items you mentioned. Otherwise, businessowners can do what they want on their own property. It’s exactly analogous to me telling you that you can’t bring your gun into my house. It’s my house!

        • avatarelnonio says:

          Eric: actually, some businesses that provide basic services have been compelled to follow certain anti-discrimination practices. For instances, look at the housing domain: can’t put a house up for rent and discriminate against potential renters on the basis of age, race, gender, etc. See Fair Housing Act. Now, granted, it’s not a direct application of the BoR.

      • avatarSivartius says:

        Yes, jwm, they do. Or forbid Christians, or white people, or left handed people, or whatever. They also have the right to be driven out of business with extreme prejudice, and I have the right to stand on the sidewalk, telling them how lower than dirt they are. And if I own my own business, I have the right to ban them from my premises and not allow any purchases by or for them. I have the right to post cartoons of them tarred and feathered and run out of town on a rail.

    • avatarnitefly says:

      I have teetered on this aspect as well, and tend to lean toward the property owner rights side. That being said, what are your thoughts as to whether specific government entities should be kept out of the private places of business as well; FDA, OSHA, Health Inspector, etc. These entities are in place to keep customers and employees safe from various things. I understand that an outside influence (shooter) is somewhat different than a dirty kitchen, but I don’t know that it is a far-fetched comparison.

  18. avatarMy name is Bob says:

    This list gets my vote. I’d fix the one date error and say “high capacity” is over 200 rounds, but I can compromise with say 175ish.

  19. avatarstateisevil says:

  20. avatarNelson says:

    me likey likey!

    Except for the part about reciprocity: it should apply to ALL gunowners, not just former gvt employees. And, private property: you own it, you get to set the rules. Enter at your own risk. If the owner bars it, you have the right to leave or not work there. And if you do use it, even in lawful defense, on the premises, you assume responsibility for your actions.

    FULL Repeal of ATF, NFA, GCA, FOPA, Brady. And reaffirm that ALL guns have military lineage. The only counter will be weapons in which one cannot carry on person like say… ICBM’s. Muahahahaha!

    Oh and… Demand a REAL Plan: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kgCemznb6Lc

    Frankly, since they break their oath all the time, the only way we can put fear of God into them for violating their Constitutional Oath?

    1. Mandate Psych Eval for ALL seeking gvt job, from public school janitors to the POTUS; as UCLA study has shown, many politicians and CEO’s share the same exact psych profile as that of convicted serial killers and sociopaths. No joke, look it up.

    2. Mandate ALL seeking public office take the strict Constructionist test on the Constitution, Federalist/Anti-Federalist papers, and philosophical foundations behind it, ie. knowledge and understanding of what Natural Rights are.

    3. Mandate ALL seeking public office to declare their entire wealth, including trusts, and blind trusts, to be put into escrow, to be forfeited to their district if they violate their Constitutional Oaths, along with any campaign promise made.

    4. ALL in public office who refer to themselves as “leaders” and not SERVANTS, shall pay $100,000 (or equivalent from the day enacted, to counter any inflation should US remain on Fiat currency system of the Fed. Reserve), for each utterance and infraction occurance! LOL

    5. ALL in public office who seek non-Constitutional paths in amending the Constitution, or conspire, or legislate to limit or infringe upon the Bill of Rights in ANY matter, one shall face the same punishment cited for the violation of the Coinage Act of 1792.

    Chances of that happening? Obviously, I’m being half facetious; it’s highly, highly unlikely. But, unless anything close to any of those 5 steps becoming a reality, don’t hold your breath in getting Constitutional purists in govt. That would be like asking for an honest whore/rapist/killer. Or, asking the local Mafia capo to change the Mafia from the inside. For anyone who’s ever worked in DC, I don’t have to tell you, there’s only one immutable law in DC: if they legislate ANYTHING, someone NOT YOU, is always making money.

    Demand a REAL Plan… yeah, right.

  21. avatarChuckN says:

    Let’s all take a page out of the Anti’s play book
    and run with this. The Antis will consider this
    as extreme as we do of registration and
    confiscation. Scream about their unwillingness
    to “reach across the aisle”. Openly force them
    to explain why no support and demand facts.
    So let’s try to make the antis compromise with
    us for a change.

  22. avatarIng says:

    This isn’t really a compromise…but that probably wasn’t the point. It’s the same kind of compromise the anti-gunners demand, only it’s moving in a *good* direction.

    I wonder, though…if there ever were a TRUE compromise, what would we give up and what would we get in return?

    Maybe limiting magazines to 50 rounds (or even 30) would be acceptable in return for universal concealed-carry recognition and repeal of the federal “gun free zones” garbage. They get something, we get something.

  23. avatarJohn Moses says:

    Any member of congress that attempts to circumvent the constitution,or proposes a bill that is found unconstitutional shall be removed from office and the state they represent shall lose that seat for the remainder of the term plus the next full term.

    • avatarEric says:

      I’m sorry, but that’s just not how the US Government was designed to work. We’ve got three branches of government for a reason, and legislating punishment of Congress is response to decisions of the judiciary would be a violation of the check-and-balance system.

      Further, such a penalty would cripple Congress anytime the Supreme Court strikes down a law. By definition, at least a majority (often a supermajority) of Congress votes for every law that gets passed. You’d be removing-from-office more than half the legislature. And what of the President who signed the law?

      • avatarBadger 8-3 says:

        Really, the US Government wasn’t designed to have its elected representatives follow the Constitution and honor their oaths?

        News to me…

  24. avatarDyspeptic Gunsmith says:

    There are smaller lists of “compromises” which have sunk prior gun legislation.

    Here’s one: Legalize shall-issue CCW in the District of Columbia. That’s a federal, not a state issue.

    Just put that one requirement into the most severe gun control bill… and watch the vote go down in flames. Why? Because these twinks who want to write gun control legislation live in DC, work in DC and spend most of their waking hours in DC… if they’re scared of guns, they’re scared of CCW in DC.

    • avatarSanchanim says:

      Oh that is a good one, better yet, DC CCW and national reciprocity. This means that states like CA, and others where it costs a fortune to get a CCW will have to except my non resident CCW from Nevada! They want a ban, house amends it, passes it, sends it back to the Senate. They would go nuts, because there is no way anyone in the Senate would want to vote on it and it would die there, then the republicans can say see we voted for it!!! You can’t blame us! lol

  25. avatarLance says:

    I dont see the GOP House caving to a AWB or ban on anything. Most high ranking Republicans said no to the AWB.

  26. avatarPeter says:

    Me likes!

  27. avatarDWE says:

    Disagree on the definition of high capacity. It doesn’t matter that there are literally few if any magazines that hold over 150. There is no number. As soon as you give a number you admit there is a number you agree to be limited by.

    • avatarAlphaGeek says:

      Fair enough. My favorite definition of “high capacity ammunition feeding system” is a designated loader who follows me around carrying extra ammo and backup weapons. I thought that’s why I had kids, anyway.

      • avatarSanchanim says:

        LMAO AG!!!!!
        hahahaha I kept thinking about the kid in The Matrix loading the mechs!! lol

        • avatarAlphaGeek says:

          I need to get one of those carts to increase capacity. As things currently stand, my middle child maxes out at about 100 readily accessible rounds of 20-gauge. Time for him to run some stairs with the load-bearing vest on!

          I’m kidding, of course. He can carry all of that AND a spare shotgun. :)

        • avatarSanchanim says:

          LMAO yeah mine whine about it to much!!!

        • avatarAlphaGeek says:

          Mine only whine if they don’t get equal time on the firing line. Or if they don’t get to shoot the cool guns.

        • avatarSanchanim says:

          Yeah mine too…

      • avatarDonS says:

        Now you’ve done it.

        High capacity kids will now be added to Feinstein’s bill.

        • avatarSanchanim says:

          Darn it… Hey maybe I can train the dog to follow me with a cart!!!!
          He will work for doggie treats!

        • avatarDonS says:

          If I tried that with mine (a GSD), she would be classified as a “high capacity assault quadruped”.

        • avatarAlphaGeek says:

          Guess that makes possession of my oldest child a class 1 felony, then — he can carry WAY more than my middle child.

          Oh, and San? I’m going to have to get a a bigger dog if that’s how the game is going to be played.

      • avatarCarlosT says:

        Kind of like the ammo runners from the third Matrix movie?

        … Or I could read the replies before posting.

  28. Ok… now how do we get this onto the floor?

  29. avatarWatchmen lewis says:

    carrying and owning a firearm should be mandatory

    • avatarMike in NC says:

      One centerfire sidearm per adult and one centerfire rifle per household as a minimum or you pay a tax in the same manner as the SCOTUS approved Obamacare scheme.

  30. avatardonny77 says:

    Let’s add one more requirement, knowing of course that in negotiations you need everything on the table so you have stuff you can pull back, not that I would want this pulled back.

    Under equal protection, no class of citizen will be able to privately own arms unavailable to other citizen classes. I.E. If LEOs can own them and store them in their homes, an unrestricted person can own and store them in their homes. If the department owns the arms, and they are kept in the squad car or in the police station, fine, but not discriminatory practices on privately owned arms.

    • avatarAlphaGeek says:

      That would effectively strike down the California AWB, not to mention many of the pointless restrictions on handguns. I’m ALL in favor of anything that accomplishes that.

    • avatarSteve in Iowa says:

      “Yeah, yeah….. We’ll keep the rifle in the patrol car”….. *wink wink*

    • avatarYette-Man says:

      Because a Leo can own a personal firearm, a convicted violent felon/mentally unstable(i will admit the exact area where this line is drawn needs to be figured out) person should be able to own one? I am 100% against someone who has proven they aren’t responsible enough to not commit a crime have a firearm.

  31. avatarTheSleeperHasAwakened says:

    Bruce W. Krafft for Congress!!!

  32. avatarRandy says:

    Sadly, I think the bottom line is if Leaders want out guns, they are going to take our guns. Most didnt want the Healthcare act, but we got it anyway. Our elected officials are more worried about their own agendas than the will of the people. Trying to counter with more freedoms is wishful thinking at this point. Now if you propose taking away their security details weapons….
    I dont like the way things are going any better than anyone else who supports the 2nd Amendment, but this administration could care less about the public opinion when it contradicts their ideology.

    • avatarAlphaGeek says:

      I respectfully disagree with your assertion that the majority of Americans didn’t want healthcare reform. That position is not supported by the facts. Support/oppose for the ACA specifically (not healthcare reform in general, which gets strong support) has been evenly divided within the margin of error for the polls up until the last 3 months, when the provisions of the ACA started to kick in and people began to see the effects. Public opinion is now firmly in the “support” column.

      Source: Kaiser Family Foundation Health Tracking Poll

      • avatarRandy says:

        Please re-read my statement. I did not say Americans did not want healthcare reform. I said they did not want the healthcare act that we ended up with. Being in the healthcare field, patients and providers alike that I have spoken with do not support this act in its current form. When this act reaches its full potential, almost 20 million Americans will still be without some form of healthcare.
        My point was that this administration has its own agenda and will do what it deems appropriate, regardless of public opinion. Also, you may think people are in support at this time, but the country has no way to pay for this type of health reform. Lets watch and see how much support it gathers when the bills come due and millions are still without healthcare.

  33. avataraReasonableGunControlAdvocate says:

    I agree with everything you have said here Bruce. It essentially boils down to removing a myriad of second amendment infringements that should never have been enacted in the first place.

  34. avatarIdahoMan says:

    “The definition of “sporting purposes” shall include all types of sport
    and competitive shooting and all “military style” and semi-automatic
    rifles, shotguns and handguns are hereby deemed suitable for sport
    shooting.”

    The “sporting purpose” language is contrary to the 2nd Amendment’s meaning, and was also derived from the Nazi Firearms Act of 1938 thanks to the late Senator Dodd. “Sporting purpose” needs to be taken out of law entirely, not supported and broadened to cover all firearms.

    “Any firearm or firearm accessory made by a private individual for
    their personal use will be beyond the authority of Congress under its
    constitutional power to regulate commerce among the states.”

    BINGO!

    “‘High capacity’ magazines will be defined as any ammunition feeding
    device designed to hold more than 150 rounds.”

    Unnecessary language. Shouldn’t be in law; makes it sound like government needs to have some kind of hand in dictating magazine capacity.

    “‘Armor piercing’ bullets will be defined as any round which, when fired
    from a pistol with a barrel of no more than 4 inches (not including recoil
    or sound suppressor) can pierce 1 inch of HY-100 steel (or its equivalent)
    at 200 yards.”

    Unnecessary government meddling. Simply strike-out AP Ammo language.

    “Any business will have the right to exclude weapons from their premises
    and by doing so they accept strict liability for protecting their employees, customers and visitors.”

    Nope. Unnecessary meddling/infringement by the government in regards to private-property rights. The above isn’t even a firearms-issue.

    Kudos.

  35. avatarspeedracer5050 says:

    An add on to this could be: if by law and/or vote you ban the legal ownership of any weapon in common use by law abiding citizens as of this date, being used for any legal means to include self defense of self, family and/or third party, then you, as a member of the Congress, Senate, House,etc, must at that time, also relinquish your right to armed security for yourself and your family, in any place you have the legal right to be, as long as you and/or your family members are not commiting Any type of illegal activity. This will also pertain to any and all schools and/or non firearms related school events that you and/or your family may attend.
    Until such time that all gun free zones are abolished by law, you may not, at any time, use any type of private, state or federal agency or it’s agents as a security detail to or for you and your family regardless of your job, location or desire, unless and until you can show a need or requirement for such security, approved by a 5/6ths vote of all law enforcement personnel in your city, county and state. A request for security must be accompanied by a letter of acknowledgement signed by,(thus showing approval), your City Police Chief, County Sheriff, and the Director and Senior Officer of your Applicable State Police Department.
    Any violation of this law, in any form, will automatically result in your arrest and detainment for a Class Y felony punishable by a fine of not less than $200,000 and 10 years in the state prison applicable to your state of residence.
    This law will remain in effect, with no clause for removal or amendment in any form, until such time as all Gun Ban Laws currently in effect, are removed and rescinded permanently at all levels from city up to and including federal levels.
    Any politician attempting to amend or offer up for vote any changes to this law that further restricts or would attempt to restrict any cutizens constitutional rights or any portion or part of the Constitution of The United States shall immediately and without pause be charged with one count of treason or conspiracy to commit treason for each incident.

  36. avatarthe last Marine out says:

    Items i would add first repeal the firearms act of 1969 to return to public the right of mail order gun buying (to vets, CCW, and over age 62), return our M1,1nd M1 carbines from Korea ( plus surplus pistols) and any place else, and sell direct to public (same as mail order), and remove the tax on full auto arms, this is a militia item, repeal the national guard act and allow the states to restore the states Militia, and only under state controls allow rockets, tanks, canons, any and all weapons as the standing army, and that no military can be used oversea or in Cont… USA but by a vote of 3/4 of both houses of congress….and no extra fee’s on the shipping of any reloading powers, primers etc… and remove any and all bans and controls on any blade items such knives and no mail controls… and use a gun for crime you get death …

  37. avatarJustLeaveLawfulGunOwnersAlone says:

    I’d just add, put the money saved by nixing NICS, put it into mandatory firearm handling and safety education in schools, cheap firearm and self-defense classes, as well as PSA campaigns which promote firearm safety and encourage people to continue to stay current with their training.

  38. avatarS Newman says:

    “Secrecy is the keystone of all tyranny. Not force, but secrecy … censorship. When ANY government, or ANY church, for that matter, undertakes to say to it’s subjects, ‘This you may not read, this you must not see, this you are forbidden to know,’ the end result is tyranny and oppression, no matter how holy the motives. Mighty little force is needed to control a man whose mind has been hoodwinked; contrariwise, no amount of force can control a FREE man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a FREE man; the most you can do is kill him.” –Robert A. Heinlein

    • avatarAlphaGeek says:

      +1 for the Heinlein quote. He’s had more influence on my personal philosophies than any 10 political thinkers I could name.

  39. avatarS Newman says:

    Our Founding Fathers were proud that Americans were trusted with arms because they knew that only when people are armed could they truly be thought of as free citizens. And that’s where the circle closes. THOSE WHO WANT TO DEPRIVE YOU OF YOUR RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS ARE INTENDING TO DEPRIVE YOU OF YOUR FREEDOM, period. Like the criminals their policies encourage, these elitists know that it is always best to disarm victims BEFORE you enslave them. — Charley Reese

  40. avatarBob says:

    I fully agree with this “modest proposal” as our comprimie on Gun ownership and the most imortant part of this is though not specifically mentiond The Second Amendment. The liberal gun grabber’s have had close to 100 yr’s of so called gun control and reducing the “gun violence”. Each and every one of them has failed and only increased the likelyhood that if you live in a population center of more than 100k you will be mugged,shot, your house broken into your car or other items stolen. All of this and more thanks to control. Gun control has never ever been about the gun it has been about people. The nics system is a cumbersdome bunch of hoops a law abiding citizen must jump thru. Ther has alwys been a list of questions in my lifetime of gun ownership that you have to fill out. any false statement is punishable by no less than 5 yr’s in a federal penetentary. So you see they just pile more regulations upon the law abiding and it never ever effect’s the criminal, the mentally deranged etc. It does however make many more people into possible victim’s for that criminal or mental deranged individual. When people are armed they are Citizen’s when they are disarmed they are “subject’s”. Gun control works for dicttor’s but not for Citizen’s

  41. avatarTotenglocke says:

    My only complaint with this is the “sporting purposes” section. That law was literally pulled from the Nazi gun control law and that’s where they got the idea of “people can only have guns for sporting purposes”. The entire “sporting purposes” bullshit needs to go, because the Second Amendment was intended to protect all arms.

  42. avatarAlphaGeek says:

    Bruce, I know it’s late in the discussion, but I want to go on record as disagreeing with you on eliminating NICS. The only justification, IMHO, for removing NICS would be to simultaneously repeal any legal constraints on anyone purchasing firearms, ever.

    As long as we have classes of citizen who are not legally entitled to purchase firearms at retail, namely felons and those disqualified for mental health reasons, we need a uniform, objectively administered system to enforce those laws. I happen to think the FBI division in charge of NICS does a reasonably good job.

    Instead, I think NICS should be funded according to projected growth, with surge capacity designed in to handle peak loads as have been experienced recently. I’m not familiar enough with the inner workings of NICS to say for sure, but there’s also the distinct possibility that it could scale up to much higher throughput levels if many or most transactions were handled electronically instead of via a voice call to an operator.

  43. avatarDisThunder says:

    I think maybe we should give ‘em a little more on the “high capacity” end:
    Ban Korean 70-round drums.
    They’re terrible anyway.

  44. avatarpat says:

    A magazine with 15-30 rounds is MUCH more effective against three determined home invaders than a 10 round magazine. Bullets can fire pretty fast in such a high stress situation from a home defender who aint James Bond and a sudden stoppage to reload can spell death if the multiple home invaders have not been dealt with. Common sense. Stupid libtards.

  45. avatarBooters says:

    What is all this crap about “honorably discharged vets” in your proposition? As if military membership somehow elevates the level of trust society should place in you? Why the disparity?

    • avatarelnonio says:

      Vets have received annual (at least for pistol- officer and rifle-enlisted) training in firearms, use and escalation of force, etc. This type of training is systemic, well known and documented in service doctrine. That’s why, not because of some elevated position or such (and, I guess, here we go again jabbing at the military…)

      Also the same reason some states (e.g. Texas) give vets/AD military a pass on the practical/range portion of concealed carry: they have already demonstrated the ability to use firearms.

  46. avatarMike says:

    LOVE IT!!!!

  47. avatarMike in NC says:

    A couple of wish-list additions:

    Revise the “Curios and Relics” qualification date to include any firearms manufactured before 1947.

    Penalties for cities, counties and states which violate FOPA travel protections.

    • avatarelnonio says:

      Mike: Why mess with the C&R? Under current rules, any firearm manufactured before 3 Jan 1963 is C&R. Your proposal is a step back, not forward.

      • avatarMike in NC says:

        My mistake for not checking before typing. For some reason I was thinking that 1898 was the cut-off which is actualy for “Antique”, rather than the C&R “50 years prior to the current date” rule.

  48. avatarBuck says:

    I would add one very important human rights point , only VIOLENT felons and the VIOLENTLY disposed mentally ill should be denied the right to bear firearms for their own defense .The millions of NON-VIOLENT felons should have all the same human and civil rights due the rest of us .

  49. One more provision: Reciprocity with the Federal Government. No more “gun-free” post offices, military bases (except possibly sensitive areas requiring controlled access), VA hospitals, National Park visitor centers, etc. Any government building prohibiting legal carry will have security sufficient to exclude illegal carry.

  50. avatarxqqme says:

    Congress has the specifically authorized Power under the “full faith and credit” clause to guarantee the civil rights of the 2nd Amendment. All they need do is 1) require each and every state to recognize that the civil rights of one citizen of the Union apply to all citizens of the Union, 2) repeal all federal laws inconsistent with the plain and simple language of the US and State Constitutions, and 3) make it a criminal act for any governmental body to assess a fee for the exercise of those Rights.

    • avatarCassandra (of Troy) says:

      xqqme/5Jan2013@08:57,

      That lil’ Constitutional thing (Article 4, Section 1) will prove VERY troublesome for supporters of ‘gay marriage’ as any attempt to have such ceremonies recognized using that as it’s affirmational basis can (& SHOULD) be used by the pro-2A side regarding CCW permits. The alarm & hysteria such a move would cause for the Left generally & its ‘gay’ & anti-2A/pro-thug cult components in particular would be hugely entertaining to see, if you think they tie themselves in knots now trying to justify their various positions just imagine what they’d have to go thru to justify opposing that application of the Constitution.

      :~O

      The Law of Unintended Consequences=Ouroboros, a 2fer!

  51. avatarCassandra (of Troy) says:

    How about this for something that’s “reasonable”,:

    Apply the anti-2A cult’s demand for comprehensive criminal & mental health assessments/checks to their “treat guns like cars” argument. Before ANYONE can buy/transfer ANY motor vehicle, the buyer has to pass the same comprehensive requirements being proposed for ALL firearms sales/transfers with the reason being that since motor vehicles are proven crime enablers (dope dealers use them to transport dope, gang bangers use them for drive-by shooting attacks, robbers use them to get to/away from their ‘jobs’ & to evade/escape law enforcement, rapists/serial killers use them to commit their crimes, crazies use them to get to where they want to commit violence, etc., etc.) it’s just “common sense” to “make sure that people who shouldn’t have” such items be prevented from obtaining them. After all, “no reasonable person would object to a little inconvenience” like that & “if it saves ONE life it’s worth it”, right?

    A bit more ‘modest’ than Bruce’s proposal, & harder for the anti-2A cult to defend against as it’s demonstrably true. Call it an ‘Orouboros’ move.

  52. avatarCassandra (of Troy) says:

    elnonio/4Jan2013@12:00
    Re: “The ONLY place……”

    If you really believe that, then you’ll FULLY & without ANY hesitation OR reservation support application of that standard to ALL Muslims & ALL African-Americans because the former are overwhelmingly involved in the planning/commission of terrorist acts worldwide & the latter are responsible for the majority of violent crime committed in the U.S. according to the F.B.I.

    Do we have a deal?

    • avatarelnonio says:

      I’m not sure what your rant has to do with anything.

      The presumption of innocence applies in a legal setting only, since that is the only place where guilt or innocence is decided. It is a legal fiction that reminds judges and jurors that the burden is on the prosecution to prove the defendant’s guilt. In that setting, it is a gender, race, religiuon, etc, neutral standard. It applies to all. Period.

      Beyond that, I refuse to be dragged into what strikes me as a patent attempt at introducing race or religion into this argument, for whatever reason you may have.

Leave a Reply

Please use your real name instead of you company name or keyword spam.