Question of the Day: Would You Trade Universal Background Checks for National Reciprocity?

Charlie Brown and Lucy negotiating (courtesy holidayfilmreviews.blogspot.com)

Gun Guys writer Dan Baum directed my attention to the latimes.com editorial A grand bargain on guns? Here’s how. The authors propose sliding fines and temporary suspensions for errant gun dealers in exchange for . . . nothing. Next up: restore the gun rights of felons convicted of non-violent offenses in exchange for permanently prohibiting people convicted of violent misdemeanants (e.g., stalking). Lastly, “expanded background checks and [nationally] expanded rights for those who have qualified for permits to carry concealed weapons.” I say no friggin’ way. You?

comments

  1. avatar gloomhound says:

    No

    We should have both by our rights.

    1. avatar Roscoe says:

      Agreed, absolutely not.

      Same reason.

      1. avatar Soccerchainsaw says:

        I concur. If I were Pres, I’d instruct the AG to prosecute anyone in government that enforces laws that are in conflict with the 2nd Amendment. Anyone being Fed, state, local. Anyone. Permits? Not necessary. Reciprocity? Understood as the way it is. Universal background checks? How about no background checks?

    2. avatar Paul G. says:

      Exactly. The 2A establishes national reciprocity already, and the illegality of background checks. No compromise. The constitution is to be taken literally.

      1. avatar Accur81 says:

        Word.

        1. avatar sagebrushracer says:

          for word

      2. avatar Duke of Sharon says:

        Exactly exactly. We should never miss an opportunity to restate the issue: The purpose of the second amendment is to ensure that we the people can throw off a tyrannical government. If the government regulates guns, it is the fox guarding the hen house.

    3. avatar Guy says:

      I think the only thing most of us are willing to trade for our rights anymore is high-velocity lead.

      1. avatar Orton Fallswell says:

        You must have eaten lead paint growing up, idiot.

        1. avatar Guy says:

          I asked the Mods to restore your comment above, which they deleted because it’s an ‘unnecessary flame,’ so you could have a chance at civil discourse. Want to give it a shot, or is that sort of thing the best you can muster?

      2. avatar Cliff H says:

        This was EXACTLY the sort of attitude that led to…

        The Declaration of Independence.

        1. avatar Guy says:

          I’m honored and flattered, sir.

        2. avatar John in Ohio says:

          Careful… Liberty might break out somewhere. 😀

  2. avatar pwrserge says:

    Depends on the details. If we’re talking something like the Illinois FOID system… Then yes. But I’d want more than reciprocity. I’d want the NFA to fall under the same system and a repeal of the 1986 ban. Federal preemption of all state bans would also have to be on the table.

    While the step back would exist, we would gain far more than we would lose.

    1. avatar Jeff says:

      I have proposed that numerous times in online discussions and received zero response.

      You would think that if UBCs are so great at preventing bad people from getting guns, then that means we can do away with those NFA restrictions, because only the bestest people will have access to guns, and we can once again trust people to buy NFA firearms over the counter.

      Nope, that’s not what they actually think.

      It’s because they don’t actually believe or know that UBCs will do anything. It just sounds nice, and is another piece of crap to add to the pile of already worthless firearms laws. They don’t want to offer us anything in compromise.

      Also, see what sort of response you get if you propose that the UBC checks don’t include any information about the type of firearm you’re buying. You know – just check and see if Joe Schmo is OK to buy a gun, and if he is, sell it to him without keeping a record of what that gun is or what its serial number is. This too is unacceptable to UBC supporters, and exposes their true intentions.

      1. avatar Samuel Suggs says:

        Ooo, and we could get free tattoos and RFID chips out of the deal too then you don’t have to carry the card.

        1. avatar Jeff says:

          I’m not actually in favor of it. It’s simply a tool to expose those advocating for UBCs as being unwilling to actually compromise, as that’s the magic word that they continually trot out to bait 2A supporters into giving them the green light.

      2. avatar michael says:

        Also the univeral background checks have to be truly universal. Anyone can check anyone elses background for any reason. You would still only get the the yes or no on whether they can buy a gun, but I could think of a lot of situations where that could be useful information. Would you buy a car from someone who can’t be trusted with a gun? 🙂

        1. avatar Cliff H says:

          “Also the universal background checks have to be truly universal. Anyone can check anyone else’s background for any reason. You would still only get the yes or no on whether they can buy a gun…”

          Michael, think about tis for just a minute. In order to have ANY background checks you need these things:

          1. A government organization to maintain, monitor and enforce the list of persons prohibited from purchasing or owning firearm
          2. A means of collecting and constantly updating a database of Americans (and others) whose natural, civil and Constitutionally protected Right to keep and bears arms may not be exercised.
          3. A comprehensive list of each and every offense or degree of mental illness/incapacitation that authorizes that government entity to deny anyone on the list their natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bears arms.

          How, exactly, is ANY of that NOT infringement?

      3. avatar Guy says:

        That’s effectively how alcohol and tobacco sales are regulated – by the same organization who regulates firearms. That’s sort of funny, in a dark way.

        How do you propose private sales work? Would felons and illegal immigrants be able to purchase in a store or from an individual?

        1. avatar Timbo says:

          Isn’t that what they do now?

      4. Just require states to put eligible or not eligible on all state I’d cards. No check needed

    2. avatar Samuel Suggs says:

      What’s worse than the Illinois FOID system in your mind? A system where w have to where little armbands with Gadsden flags on them and live in a special part of the city?

      1. avatar pwrserge says:

        I’d trade it in a heartbeat for a full repeal of the NFA and NICS. Absolutists positions don’t get us anywhere. Being able to fight the war intelligently, will get us our rights back.

        1. avatar Cliff H says:

          So in your opinion the Second Amendment reads: “…shall be infringed, except for…”?

        2. avatar John in Ohio says:

          More like you’re selling out everyone’s birthright for less than even trinkets. The moment we agree that government has that kind of legitimate power enumerated under our Constitution is the moment that we destroy the 2A. A thief has already ransacked your house and you’re going to debate with him how much more he can take from you and all of your neighbors while in ‘compromise’ he will give y’all some of your possessions back? That’s foolish and certainly won’t win you any friends amongst a free people!

          A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

          Government hasn’t the legitimate, constitutional authority enumerated unto it. Indeed, the Second Amendment specifically prohibits infringement. There is absolutely nothing that you, me, or any free individual can gain by engaging in pseudo-compromises with a tyrannical government.

        3. avatar pwrserge says:

          Ok guys… See how far that gets you in Congress. The reality is that we “agreed” to the NFA, the GCA, and the Brady Bill already. This would be an opportunity to roll back some of the damage.

        4. avatar John in Ohio says:

          @pwrserge: Congress is bound by the Constitution. Just because they’ve chosen to violate it doesn’t mean that I must condone it. I will never stop pushing for my rights. Appeasers are barely a step up from traitors when they knowingly continue to give government a pass to continue violating the contract by which the People agreed to be governed. You won’t make any lasting headway with your chosen compromises. You only lend a sense of validity to infringement and insult the sacrifices made by many to uphold the Constitution. From whom does power flow in our Nation; from the People to government or the other way around? Until we fix the catastrophic failure in the way that our government does its business today, no freedom is assured. Stand up. Stop engaging in false compromises. Take what was always yours. Otherwise, you’re capitulating to a tyrannical government and agreeing with its usurpation of power.

    3. avatar Duke of Sharon says:

      Even with reciprocity, you are still stuck convincing one of the 50 sub-states that you are a good little boy prior to exercising your God given right. That is not victory.

    4. avatar Cliff H says:

      This would not be “a step back…” This would be an overt admission that we do not believe that “…shall not be infringed.” has any legal standing and that we are not willing to FIGHT for an accurate interpretation of our natural, civil and Constitutionally protected rights.

      The INSTANT you agree that any infringement is okay you have agreed that all infringement is okay because the right is now a permission from the government, not a natural right they cannot dictate the terms of.

      1. avatar pwrserge says:

        That horse has already left the barn. We need to be realistic and strategic about rolling back the damage. We limit the restrictions to background checks on a federal level. Then we roll back “shall issue” with court challenges and roll back the list of prohibited persons with the same. If we can take down the NFA and GCA with one fell swoop? We’d be idiots not to go for it.

        1. avatar John in Ohio says:

          That only sets the stage for a perpetual back and forth between the People and government. The 2A is clear. The natural right has long been established as well. We CAN re-assert the plain language of the 2A once and for all. I would argue that we’re closer than some might think. If enough people would not get sidetracked by the mistaken notion that we can ‘negotiate’ our rights back then Liberty would be victorious already. We’d be fools to take the course that you suggest. It doesn’t solve the initial problem with our government’s apparent reading comprehension problem… shall not be infringed. Do you actually want to see an armed uprising by the People in this nation? If you do then your proposed course of action will help ignite one. There are many Patriots who are up in age. They are fed up with infringement and are determined to see it corrected in their own lifetimes. They’ve seen where your path leads and it isn’t to actual resolution of the problem. We’ve been there, done that. It doesn’t work in the long run!

        2. It never ceases to amaze me how unashamedly the collectivist morons discuss, debate, and try to justify in their twisted, self-centered minds how to take our rights, never realizing that they would not like, and likely would not survive, what would happen should they actually try.
          Clueless as they are, and being state worshipers with no sense of independence, they can’t conceive that, while we are generally non-violent, and, unlike them, predisposed to allow others to live as they choose as long as they show us the same courtesy, that we’d fight them to the death to prevent them from taking our rights and freedom and condemning us to live, as they do, like sheeple.

    5. avatar cdphil says:

      Yes if they rolled an abollished NFA in to it I would vote for it

      1. avatar John in Ohio says:

        Thank goodness it isn’t a voting matter. So, you would support the violation of our Constitution? The correct course for you is a constitutional amendment. Please stop trying to steal my ability to freely exercise my RKBA. I can’t stand thieves. Regardless of how you might dress it up, you are admittedly willing to steal what is mine for your own gain. Shame on you!

        1. Right on, John.
          We should have a very long memory of whom in power abuses us and who followed the order to do the abuse.
          Perhaps if tyrants’ heads (and also their enablers) were still routinely mounted on sticks alongside the highway, for both a punishment and a reminder of their misdeeds, we wouldn’t have to endure such foolish people as them and the evil they set upon us.

    6. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

      Wrong. It’s a Faustian bargain. All of the reasons I posted in my original post illustrate that national reciprocity isn’t quite the fluidity of firearms freedom it might at first seem. You know what else isn’t quite as it first appears? So-called universal background checks. It’s a trap, a trick, a fatal funnel through which anti-gunners would lure us and destroy all of our firearms rights. How?

      Mandating universal background checks means mandating that all transfers go through FFL’s. The proof? Any time the liberals propose universal background checks, they NEVER couple that with granting individuals’ access to the FBI’s NICS system. In fact, they fought that in 1994 and in 2013, too. “Universal background checks” therefore is actually “banning private transfers of firearms” because you wouldn’t be able to conduct a background check yourself. It would have to go through an FFL who has NICS access. Well.

      That gives the government a pre-installed boot on our necks. The federal government could then set transfer prices as high as they like. They could set FFL fees as high as they like. They can set FFL application standards as high as they like, say, by demanding that FFL’s have full-on, built-in gun vaults, or must have high-end security systems with 24 hour monitoring, or must have a commercial store front, or must have 24 hour onsite employee presence, or must carry a certain amount of insurance coverage, or must have 10 character references, or must be engaged in business exclusively as dealers (not as a side job), or, or, or an infinite number of other rules and regulations. And that’s not even getting into the regulatory abuses that agents of the state could inflict on the remaining FFL’s.

      All of which policies would by desire and design serve to drive up costs for consumers, drive out of business as many FFL’s as possible, reduce our access to firearms, and ultimately throttle in its slumber our right to keep and bear arms.

    7. Huh?????
      Like Illinois? Are you nuts, or just trolling.
      It never ceases to amaze me how unashamedly the collectivist morons discuss, debate, and try to justify in their twisted, self-centered minds how to take our rights, never realizing that they would not like, and likely would not survive, what would happen should they actually try.
      Clueless as they are, and being state worshipers with no sense of independence, they can’t conceive that, while we are generally non-violent, and, unlike them, predisposed to allow others to live as they choose as long as they show us the same courtesy, that we’d fight them to the death to prevent them from taking our rights and freedom and condemning us to live, as they do, like sheeple.

  3. avatar Dyspeptic Gunsmith says:

    No way.

    They’ll later legislate changes to the national CCW law, and keep the universal registration in place.

    The anti-gun types have lied so many times, on so many issues, that no one should believe a word they say.

    1. avatar Mike says:

      This. Gun owners have given up too much in the name of “compromise”, while remaining the target of constant scorn and demonization by people who claim we don’t compromise. Our compromises have been shown to be unnecessary, we need to get back what was lost to us.

      1. If the supporters of the right to keep and bear arms were even fractionally as unstable, violent, and vicious as our antagonists believe, there simply wouldn’t BE any of those antagonists left alive.
        Perhaps we are TOO good for our own good?

        1. avatar Matt in FL says:

          I read something not long ago that basically said that gun owners in the US are, as a class, some of the most law-abiding, slow to anger, tradition-respecting people in the country. If they weren’t, do you think the anti-gunners would try this stuff? If they weren’t, wouldn’t those folks be in fear for their lives?

        2. Here’s an article on that …

          How often do police officers commit homicide compared to concealed carry permit holders? Of the two, which is more common?
          It appears that a person is three times safer with a concealed carry permit holder than they are with a police officer.
          Attempting to determine how the homicide rate of people with CCW permits compares to that of police officers is not an easy task. There are several sources that show that people with CCW permits are far more law abiding than the general population.
          One would like to believe that the same is true for police officers, but data is much harder to obtain for them. Agencies that employ sworn officers do not like to tarnish their name with the misdeeds of officers, and unlike a few states that track crimes committed by CCW permit holders, I do not know of any government database of crimes committed by peace officers.
          The best reported crimes are homicides. It is a significant event that is difficult to ignore. There is usually a body. Media usually reports all the homicides that they learn of.
          I found two sources of data that seem roughly comparable: One being the anti-gun Violence Policy Center (VPC) ( http://www.vpc.org/fact_sht/ccwtotalkilled.pdf ) who attempts to track all homicides that are committed by CCW permit holders. The data is incomplete, in that it relies on publicly reported stories, but it gives us a useful figure. It does not seem likely that many reported stories are missed. (we can also assume by the source that VPC data is biased against lawful gun owners)
          For police, I used a web site that tracks domestic homicides committed by police officers, and another that does the same for police involved domestic violence. The data is comparable to the VPC data in that it relies on publicly reported stories. Data was available for complete years from 2008 – 2011 for comparison of the two groups.
          Florida was chosen to represent CCW permit holders, because accurate numbers of permits were obtainable from the Florida Department of Agriculture. Florida has the highest total of CCW permits of all the states, and the number of resident concealed carry permits in Florida is reasonably close to the number of sworn state and local peace officers in the United States.
          The Violence Policy Center (VPC) says that Florida tops the nation in killings by people with concealed carry permits. VPC has complete years in their data base for 2008 – 2011 for Florida. There are 27 total killings that are unjustified homicides by CCW permit holders, and 14 of those are domestic homicides. The rate of domestic homicides per 100,000 per year is .583 per 100,000 for CCW holders.
          The homicide rate nationally dropped from 5.4 to 4.7 per 100,000 during this period, and the Florida homicide rate dropped from 6.4 to 5.2 per 100,000. Since we are only looking at CCW holders in Florida, we would expect those rates to be a bit higher than the national rate for this period
          When we look at the numbers for sworn officers, I found 52 domestic homicides committed by sworn police officers from 2008 – 2011. For the police, nationally from 2008 through 2011, the rate is 52/2,818,924 or 1.854/100,000 domestic homicides per 100,000 police per year.
          For the data that we have, police appear to be three times as likely to commit murder as a concealed carry permit holder.
          If we include all unjustified homicides (suicides were not included) found in Florida by the VPC for CCW holders for the entire four years, the rate is only 27/2,400,713 or 1.125 per 100,000 population per year. This is comparable with the homicide rates in developed western European countries. It is 61% of the rate for police officers for domestic homicides alone.
          There are no complete and definitive sources of data that will give us an accurate ratio of unjustified homicides committed by police compared to CCW holders. The numbers are very small and no one keeps a national record of them.
          However, the numbers found for domestic homicide cases, which are some of the easiest solved and most highly publicised cases, offer strong evidence that CCW permit holders are less likely to commit unjustified homicide than police officers, as little as one third as much.

          ©2013 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.

        3. avatar Rich Grise says:

          So, I guess if they’re ever successful, we’ll have to murder them with our bare hands and bows and arrows and kitchen knives and chainsaws and golf clubs and stuff, huh?

        4. avatar John in Ohio says:

          Great comment, Carl Stevenson! A lot of truth there.

          @Matt in FL: Spot on. Even in person, when an anti is going on about how the presence of firearms ‘scare’ and ‘worry’ them but they come up to the armed person and bitch about it?!?! That does not compute. 😉

        5. avatar Rich Grise says:

          It’s the hive mentality, or herd instinct, or something like that.

    2. avatar pwrserge says:

      How about this…

      We have a national FOID card. (Must be issued within 30 days of application, no individual gun registration requirement) The “background check” would be a simple call to verify that the card is still valid. (With a requirement that you keep a receipt of the FIOD number and confirmation number for say… 5 years.)

      In exchange… We get rid of NICS and the NFA branch as well as get a federal preemption on all carry and ownership bans.

      1. avatar ST says:

        No.

        I know a friend in Ilinois who had to wait 61 days to get his FOID card.State law says they have 30 ,but the ISP hasn’t beeen bound by their own laws since the 80s.

        You’re a fool if you think anything different would happen at the federal level.

        1. avatar pwrserge says:

          You have to press the issue. I got mine in two weeks.

          But I would argue that if we gain something worth the risk. (Such as a full repeal of the NFA.) We can take a look.

          (Fun fact, the case law is already on our side as there is a case in California where waiting periods have been ruled unconstitutional at the federal level.)

        2. avatar JeffR says:

          I pressed. A lot. Took me 4 months to get a replacement FOID card.

        3. avatar pwrserge says:

          JeffR, you know you could have sued them and got your card, damages, and all legal costs? Right?

        4. avatar JeffR says:

          pwrserge: Oh, I know. There is a downside to being an attorney in a big law firm in a very liberal town. Getting your name attached to certain issues is not good for business or continued employment. Self-censorship is miserable.

      2. avatar Mr. Pierogie says:

        The problem here is that the Supremes have ruled over the years that the states are free to impose “reasonable” restrictions on the 2A. I’m not even talking about circuit courts in blue states who keep ruling that the 2A does not apply outside one’s home. Technically the 2A is your “national permit to carry” but of course the Supreme Court keeps ruling otherwise. As such, even if you could expand background check (I’m not even sure what that means) and in exchange get national reciprocity, my guess is that at least some of the blue states or major cities (NYC, etc) would immediately challenge the law. And, unfortunately, the Supreme Court would (once again) rule that the states can do whatever they want. Therefore this national reciprocity either would not stand or be very much limited, hence not even worth the sacrifice.

        1. avatar pwrserge says:

          Part of the reason I want other things added to the package. Such as a repeal of the NFA and federal preemption. (The later would be legal under the 2nd amendment and it’s incorporation under McDonald.)

      3. avatar Cliff H says:

        NO!

        An FOID card is just a prayer for government permission to exercise a natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right. It is a demand by the government that you PROVE you are a law-abiding citizen, not that they prove you are guilty of some crime.

        I have seen, and I do not know exactly where this is being implemented, where a person convicted of DUI has to carry a driver license with a bright orange band around the edge. So here’s my ONLY willingness to compromise:

        If you are convicted of a violent felony your driver’s license or any other official government photo I.D. MUST contain a bright orange border. Anyone who wants to sell you a firearm can look at your I.D. and if they see the orange they have the right to end the transaction at that moment. Or not, their choice.

        Past that the government has no right and no business.

        1. avatar John in Ohio says:

          I respect your opinions and find myself nodding in approval at most of what you write. However, even I can’t agree with this. There is no gain in these false compromises. You might think that you’re getting what you want now but you saddle all future generations with shall not be infringed not meaning exactly that. They will suffer from infringement until the day they rise up and implement the second utility of the 2A; the first being a deterrent to tyranny. Save some lives, don’t fall for any false compromise.

        2. avatar pwrserge says:

          As I said John, that horse left the barn in 1932. We need to be smarter about how we roll back the damage.

        3. avatar John in Ohio says:

          @pwrserge: As I’ve answered back, at length, elsewhere in these comments… We have arrived where we are at by the very methods you recommend! It doesn’t solve the initial problem with government. Please stop advocating the theft of my ability to exercise my natural right and a right explicitly protected from government infringement by the Constitution. Please stop helping the thieves. It makes you complicit in their larceny. Our RKBA is infringed today because, in part, of foolish notions like yours. Stand up. Stop this nonsense from government once and for all. Your path only leads to more of the same over time. You aren’t eating an elephant. You’re creating one!

      4. pwserge
        No.
        They have NO authority for ANY of the bullshit infringements they have already enacted.
        It is time to push back and take back what is ours.

        1. avatar John in Ohio says:

          Aye! With each generation we get farther away from true individual liberty. Freedom now, before this generation passes from this Earth. I used to be active in the liberty movement for my future children and grandchildren. As I get older, more and more, I’m focused on liberty in my time.

      5. pwserge
        No.
        They have NO authority for ANY of the bullshit infringements they have already enacted.
        It is time to push back and take back what is ours.

    3. avatar Matt in FL says:

      DG’s got it. No way.

      I read through that article. I didn’t find where we were “getting” anything except some nebulous, non-defined form of reciprocity in exchange for giving up five or six very specific things.

      “I’ll gladly pay you tomorrow for a hamburger today” might work in real life, but not in gun rights.

      1. avatar B says:

        NJ and Cali CHL’s recognized nationwide, all others outlawed for not meeting standards. Thats what this would end up being. F* that, no more, not one more inch to them.

        1. avatar Cliff H says:

          I’ll bet they would recognize Hawaii and Washington D.C. as well.

  4. avatar Dave357 says:

    The Senate had a chance to do this kind of bargain when they voted on gun bills earlier this year, and it was pretty clear that Schumer and company would rather die than allow national carry, background checks or not. Because guns in NYC and all. So, one can contemplate it if one wants to, but this type of “bargain” is probably not an option regardless of what one thinks of it.

    1. avatar disthunder says:

      Yep. I think that’s what Gottlieb was shooting for when he sort-of backed the bill.
      I like the idea of national reciprocity, but I need a better honeypot than just that to sign on for softcore registration. The NFA would have to go, then we could talk.

  5. avatar peirsonb says:

    Maybe I dozed off during social studies, civics, and government classes….isn’t there a “shall not be infringed” in there somewhere?

    Bargain. They keep using that word. I do not think it means what they think it means.

    1. avatar Old Ben turning in grave says:

      I’m with you, but at least it would be a true compromise since each side would get something they want but don’t currently have. All past “compromises” have been more along the lines of “we won’t screw you as hard as we want to…for now.”

      1. avatar peirsonb says:

        I’m a firm believer that “shall not be infringed” means exactly what it says. I am not, however, blind to the reality in which we find ourselves. Our rights have been infringed, in big ways.

        That’s why I disagree with the tactics, but not with the intentions, of the fervent open carry crowd. Standing there saying “Because the Second Amendment” isn’t going to change a thing. That thinking is naïve at best.

        But we’re also not going to get there by getting some parts of the infringements lessened while letting more infringements slip in the back door.

        And I just noticed that I am able to be much more eloquent when not typing with my thumbs…..

        1. avatar jimbthepilot says:

          This.
          “…shall not be infringed.”
          Pretty damn clear.

        2. avatar Old Ben turning in grave says:

          Like I say, I’m with you on not bargaining away rights. Actually, as soon as you do bargain on a right, you have made it negotiable and therefore no longer really a right. Then, it’s just a matter of time before they whittle whatever you have away by slow increments. Unfortunately, we were past this critical point long before most of us were born. Restoring lost rights is a much more difficult proposition than holding onto existing rights.

      2. avatar Ing says:

        This is a little bit more like an actual compromise. A crappy one, but still a compromise.

        I’ll take it as a good sign…but the answer is no. National reciprocity would be a very good thing, and I’d be willing to trade for it, but I’ve seen what their idea of universal background checks looks like, and no way in hell will I ever go there.

        On the other hand… Maybe if they’re floating compromise, they’re willing to talk about better ways to do this. If it could be done anonymously, without recording the seller’s personal info or trying to register the gun — just a simple verification that the buyer isn’t prohibited — then it might be worth doing.

        Like any such system it will be totally ignored by criminals, and I’m not sure how it’d be possible to force anyone to use it who didn’t want to, but it might help the hoplophobes feel better, and it would reduce the burden on gun owners. And it couldn’t be abused as a de facto registry.

      3. avatar Cliff H says:

        Sorry, Ben, but this would not be an equitable compromise. They would get from us an overt admission that “…shall not be infringed.” does not actually mean that and we will no longer demand an accurate reading and enforcement of the Second Amendment, and we would get, with every subsequent gun control law, “But you said we could infringe, remember?”

  6. avatar 505markf says:

    No. Not one more step backwards.

    1. avatar pwrserge says:

      If you take three steps forward for one step back, is that a step back? I would strongly argue that it depends on what we get in the bargain and how the bill is written.

      1. avatar Braenen says:

        The three steps forward are along a ridge. The one step back could send you down the chasam. Be careful of who you are dealing with. Satan is a girl scout in comparison to these people.

      2. avatar Old Ben turning in grave says:

        The BG checks would have to prevent de facto registration, with real penalties and no BS about the Justice Dept policing itself. Better yet would be to let individuals use the database on local hard drives without any records being kept. The dems would never go for that of course, because background checks are not really what they want.

      3. avatar 505markf says:

        I get the argument, 3 steps forward, 1 step back nets 2 steps forward, and it is not a bad argument. It sounds reasonable, but the devil’s always in the details.

        Here’s a trade-off I’d consider: UBC law that is as blind as possible and significantly better supported by technology. Eliminate the 4473 for FFLs and offer one check, via phone or online, to determine if a person X – only providing the minimum personal info needed to check the database – is legally allowed to own a firearm. Result would simply be an electronic record, with a paper receipt emailed, that says nothing more than person Y determined, on this day at this time, that person X was legally allowed to own a firearm. No details on said firearm, etc. Granted, as we all know, this kind of thing is completely unenforceable, but if Congress wants to pass that kind of dumb ass law, that’s their problem.

        I’d trade the UBCs ONLY if we can get laws that significantly expand the rights of people who cannot exercise them. So, if they want “universal” background checks, I’d want “universal” shall issue laws in every state, territory, and DC. No magazine restrictions. Elimination of gun free zones. No local or state prohibitions on firearms ownership. Suppressors removed from the NFA along with short-barreled rifles and shotguns (paper crimes only, which is stupid). No import restrictions on firearms or ammo. Any city of 10,000 or more must provide a suitable public venue for shooting sports. Subsidized firearms instruction for any citizen so desiring….

        I could go on, but because my wish list is so unrealistic, I just summed it up by “not one more step”. There is actually a lot I would like to see, but there is no way I would ever support a tradeoff that did not increase the opportunity for more people to own firearms and to be able to engage in the shooting sports.

        I might consider some compromise if it allowed more people to be citizens rather than subjects, because at the end of the day, we need more people to understand that when push comes to shove, personal liberty is the only solution.

        1. avatar pwrserge says:

          Oh… I agree.

          A full repeal of the NFA, NICS, and mandatory reciprocity are my non-negotiable minimums.

      4. They NEVER keep their part of the bargain.
        The deal is the deal, until they figure out how to screw you.
        There is a saying that the only honest politician is the one who, once bought, stays bought. However, they don’t stay bought, and like the Ferengi (sp?) of Star Trek, their view is “Once you have their money (rights), never give it (them) back.”

        1. avatar Rich Grise says:

          “like the Ferengi (sp?) of Star Trek, their view is “Once you have their money (rights), never give it (them) back.”;”

          I’m sorry, but that’s a very very bad comparison. For one, the Ferengi aren’t thieves. For another, they’re not infringing anyone’s rights. And for a third, “never give their money back” merely means that a deal’s a deal. It doesn’t mean that you can’t make a new agreement. But really, if it’s a bad deal, whose fault is it for agreeing to it in the first place?

          The Ferengi are the purest free-market capitalists. Well, there were some nasty ones early on in the evolution of the franchise, but there are bad apples in any population. The Klingons are a warrior race, but they have Honor. And bad humans abound, and usually become government minions. The scum does, after all, float to the top.

        2. avatar Carl Stevenson says:

          Come on … The Ferengi were sleazy and would knowingly defraud (and occasionally outright steal). “never give their money back” clearly applied in all transactions, including fraudulent ones.

          I stand by the comparison.

        3. avatar Rich Grise says:

          Carl Stevenson says:
          ” … fraudulent ones.”

          Then you should have no problem pointing out the episode(s) where this happens:
          http://www.startrek.com/videos
          Click the “Channels” link in the blue bar, and there they all are.

          Like they say in Missouri (and in more of the country these days), show me.

  7. avatar Ross says:

    No, if they do it for ALL items in the NFA, then I’ll talk.

  8. avatar Daniel says:

    My rights are not subject to compromise.

    1. avatar Cliff H says:

      All other comments on this post take a back seat to this one.

      A right is a right. An individual MAY consent to a limitation of his personal exercise of a right, if he feels as an individual it is advantageous to his situation.

      But NO ONE has the right to negotiate away MY rights or the rights of an entire group, and that includes supposed democratic referendum on the issue. My rights are NOT subject to your vote.

      1. John is 100000000% right.

        “The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts.” – Supreme Court Justice Robert H. Jackston, W. Virginia Board of Education v. Burnette, 1943

        And,

        “Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.” – Miranda v. Arizona (384 US 438)

        Our rights are NOT subject to negotiation, infringement, regulation, or legislation.

    2. avatar John in Ohio says:

      +1

  9. How is ‘stalking’ violent?

    1. avatar jwm says:

      LS, I’ve dealt with stalkers. The real issue with a stalker is the fact that just the behaviour in itself is a real warning of dangerous mental illness. I personally know a stalker that believed that God wanted him to kill a church bishop so that he could have the bishops wife as his own.

      In my experience stalking is such a red flag that it should be elevated to immediate arrest and transportation to a secure mental health facility, regardless of any other crimes the stalker may have committed.

      In my security life I protected more than 1 person, always females, from stalkers. The stalker has a devasting impact on the victims life. And they do escalate.

      1. avatar Fug says:

        You’re absolutely right. It is hard to falsely accuse someone of stalking, if they’re really doing it they will get caught and it will be documented if the victim makes an effort. Once this happens, a psych eval should be standard procedure.

        We had a guy locally who was breaking into female dorms at the University on one man panty raids. He was like 40 and he was insane because he got caught doing it more than once and threw away a fairly lucrative career. The second time they caught him in a tree outside the dorm with stolen panties on his head like a mask.

        No reasonable person engages in stalking behavior. They are all just aspiring rapists and murderers. Women do it too, and while it isn’t usually as aggressive, it is among the surest signs of mental illness you can get for people of either gender.

        1. avatar Matt in FL says:

          “No reasonable person engages in stalking behavior. They are all just aspiring rapists and murderers.”

          Exactly. A stalker is an assaulter/rapist/murderer who hasn’t worked up the courage yet. All they need is, as they call it on Criminal Minds, a “trigger.” That could be as major as the death of a loved one, or as minor as someone bumping into them in the grocery store.

  10. avatar C says:

    Not for national reciprocity, but i would consider exchanging bg checks for a full NFA repeal.

    1. avatar Joe says:

      +100000

      get rid of NFA, make all NFA items clear via the regular background checks (and no waiting period) and then we can talk about universal background checks. But without a card.

      1. avatar Larry says:

        Joe, any of the arguments I have seen on this page open the door for more infringements. You live in a fantasy world. What part of “Shall Not Infringe” do you not understand? “Infringers” do not stay bought. Once the camel gets his nose in the tent, he wheedles more infringement until he is in the warm tent and you are out in the cold. Neville Chamberlain tried that in 1938 saying “How horrible, fantastic, incredible it is that we should be digging trenches and trying on gas masks here because of a quarrel in a far-away country between people of whom we know nothing.” Neville Chamberlain, 27 September 1938, 8 p.m. radio broadcast, on Czechoslovak refusal to accept Nazi demands to cede border areas to Germany. The people of Cezchoslovakia and Poland paid the price of Chamberlains appeasement in blood. Hitler might not have have a hump on his back, but he was most surely the “camel” in this analogy and the world fought a long and bloody war to evict the camel and his armies from the tent. In one of the Star Trek original series, the leader of the rebels upon achieving victory over invaders of their country, said something like, “finally after years, what was once ours is now ours again forever.” That episode stayed with me for a long time. Of course, most of the Star Trek episodes of that time had a moral message of one kind or another. I don’t know if appeasement played a role in the beginning of that conflict. It wasn’t brought out, but I wouldn’t be surprised if the writer of that episode had originally written it in and it was cut in the interests of episode time constraints. I said all that to say this: the 2A says “….the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” Period. Anything that attempts to abridge that message is an infringement. CCls, NICs, bans and any law that says otherwise is an infringement. I can see NIC and ccls as a necessity in todays world of crime, but in an ideal world, none of that would be needed. I certainly don’t want some insane murderer after being paroled being able to buy a gun so he can take up his murderous ways, but not having a gun wouldn’t slow him down much. he can still buy a sword or a butcher knife or a carpenters hammer or for that matter, a baseball bat. My point being, he shouldn’t have been able to be paroled and he will find anything for a weapon if he is that determined.

        1. avatar John in Ohio says:

          Good comment. To add, the common citizen, being familiar with and having arms commonly at hand, could easily mitigate that insane murder’s criminal actions.

  11. avatar Davis Thompson says:

    Give them nothing.

  12. avatar jwm says:

    I don’t think a misdemeaner should be grounds for a lifetime gun ban. If your crime was that serious it should be a felony with prison time.

    I think Germany allows non violent felons to regain their gun rights after they jump thru a series of hoops. I would be cool with that. Violent felons, no. I worked at a prison. It was chilling to hear the violent ones do mental gymnastics to explain why they had no choice but to hurt their victim. It all boiled down to “They made me hurt them.” Truly scary stuff.

    As for the rest of it. Constitutional carry should be the law of the land.

    1. avatar peirsonb says:

      Constitutional carry should be is the law of the land

      Most of the government, at all levels, being willing to ignore something doesn’t make it change….

    2. avatar Braenen says:

      If you allow the violent misdemenor thing they would simply start defining EVERYTHING, jaywalking, spitting on the sidewalk, sneezing without covering your mouth, all as violent misdemeanors. That is one hell of a step down the greesed slope.

      1. avatar peirsonb says:

        Not to mention that you would be allowing the federal government unfettered ability to alter the criminal code in the individual states.

        That thought just gave me chills….

  13. avatar ThomasR says:

    No. The compromise I would accept; repeal all gun free zones and all gun control laws since 1968 and recognize CCl’s. in all states l and continue accepting registering newly produced full auto weapons.

    1. avatar Cliff H says:

      So, Thomas, you are willing to concede that ALL gun control laws passed prior to 1969 in no way infringe on our natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms?

  14. avatar ST says:

    No.

    For one-and I hate to rain on anyone’s parade, but it must be said-a national CCW permit violates the 10th Amendment of the USC.The power to issue carry permits is NOT explicitly delegated to the Federal Government, and so it resides with the states. That this means LA residents are denied a right recognized in San Antonio is deplorable, but the proper resolution for THAT greivance is a properly adjudicated 14th Amendment suit, NOT another Federal overreach .

    Two: universal background checks do nothing to stop determined criminals.What they will do is block commerce to the point that some people won’t be ABLE to buy a gun.If a town has two FFLs ,anyone interested in trading firearms has to now find a way to schedule time to undergo the BG check .That may not be possible depending on the logistics-look at California, where two residents have to work out the logistics of finding a dealer willing to process a BG check on a private sale.

    Since FFLs make money on selling their stock to customers rather then processing paperwork on other peoples sales, a UBC requirement would be like putting a wall on private sales.It would also lay the groundwork for future regulations on storage and unlawful seizure of arms, with all transfers being documented and all.

    Short answer-hell no.

    1. avatar H.R. says:

      And a UBC requirement could price the ability to own a gun for defense out of the reach of some people. No single mom working as many hours as she can get as a waitress to support her kids should be denied the ability to protect herself because the local FFL has a monopoly on transfers and is charging $200 a pop for one.

    2. avatar pwrserge says:

      It’s a due faith and credit issue, not a 10th amendment issue. Just as states must recognize other state’s driver’s licenses, they should be required to recognize CCW permits.

      1. avatar ST says:

        Except the 10th Amendment places the authority to issue CCW permits squarely in the hands of the states.

        Which leads to the unpleasent status quo of your zip code determining your right to self defense.That’s a perfect Equal Protection argument.If you go to a court in this cultural envirornment wailing about how every state should recognize the others CCW permit based on faith and good credit, you’ll establish a bad precedent -because the judiciary can define what a “recognizeable CCW permit ” means.Given our judicial culture, that means they’ll say no CCW permit is valid unless it meets a ridiculously high threshhold -like Illinois’ $300 carry permit.

        1. You don’t get it, do you? CCW “permits” are, in and of themselves, unconstitutional infringements.
          Please stop allowing/condoning the continuing violation of our rights. Some of us are trying to get them back.

      2. avatar B says:

        The 2nd amendment, the RKBA is recognized as existing before the government and not coming from the government. Powers not given to the federal government are the purvue of the states and the people. Those powers do not include taking away those rights recognized by the BOR. Until we get the government to back the f* off and acknowledge that we are lost by nick and cuts.

    3. avatar Salty Bear says:

      10A is a beautiful thing, but you’re wrong. NO government – not federal, not state, and not local – has any authority or say when it comes to carry licenses. The very existence of such licenses is against 2A.

      We need to start accepting that we don’t live in 1776 – that the Constitution is dead in America – and that we will never get our firearms freedom back peaceably. So either we make real compromises, we write a Declaration of Independence and raise a militia to protect it, or we stop whining about infringements on our freedoms. I’m not suggesting anything, but the Framers made it clear about what to do if our government becomes destructive to the ends of preserving our liberty. If we’re still willing to suffer injustice, then we have what we want.

      1. Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them. – Miranda v. Arizona (384 US 438)

        The US Supreme Court ruled in Murdock v. Pennsylvania, as follows:
        (Page [319 U.S. 105, 113]) “The privilege in question exists apart from state authority. It is guaranteed the people by the federal constitution. viz., The state cannot and does not have the power to license, nor tax, a Right guaranteed to the people.”

    4. McDonald incorporates the 2A onto the states. Infringement of the BoR at ANY level of government is unconstitutional. Period. (And unlike Obama, I mean it!)

      1. avatar Rich Grise says:

        Carl Stevenson is right. The states, in joining the compact formed by the Constitution, agree to abide by its limits as a condition of statehood.

  15. avatar Kyle in CT says:

    Universal background checks OK, in return for closure of the ATF and folding all FOPA-consistent ATF functions into the FBI, mandated destruction of all background check records within 48 hours with a clause extending to state and local governments, and national reciprocity.

  16. avatar Jim R says:

    Sorry, not in the mood to bargain on my natural human rights.

  17. avatar Steve in MD says:

    Being stuck in “May Issue (read: No F-ing Way) Maryland,” I’m inclined to take the deal and run with it.

    The Universal background Checks would have to be instant though. None of this “We’ll get back to you sometime before the sun burns out.”

  18. avatar H.R. says:

    Nope.
    For universal background checks to possibly work, they’d have to register every gun in this country that’s been made since 1899 to some user to begin with. Unless you do that, with millions of guns, any universal background check scheme is pointless – criminals will just seek out one of the 300 million guns already in existence before the UBC took effect.
    And since I don’t support registration, and since it’s entirely impossible to register 300 million guns (owned by people who are likely to not comply with such a scheme), UBC’s are just one more hurdle to law-abiding gun owners.

    1. avatar Mecha75 says:

      No, there is a way to do it and RF had an article about it that I completely agree with. Still there is a potential for abuse there to. And it doesn’t invlove registering any guns. Of course, if they did it that way we would end up with another failed Obamacare type website (this time the intent for it to fail would not be indoubt).

      1. avatar H.R. says:

        You happen to remember the name of the article/post? I haven’t been here a real long time and I haven’t seen that one.
        I probably won’t be convinced by it, but it never hurts to put a little thought into things.

  19. avatar Henry Bowman says:

    No compromise!

  20. avatar Jesse Nelson says:

    I’m a member of the GOA. And I don’t negotiate with terrorists.

  21. avatar Mike S says:

    I agree with all of you saying “no f**kin’ way”…..but as a strategy they may be right. It’s the only way they have any hope at all of passing a national gun bill. I’d be against it….but would the House GOP? Tough to say.

  22. avatar MojoRonin says:

    “If you want your reciprocity, you can get your reciprocity” Why is it when a law is enacted it works out to be the opposite of the law/act/amendment title? For instance: Affordable Healthcare Act – My family’s insurance monthly cost doubled with a 16,300 deductible. And there was not. a. damn. thing. wrong. with my previous insurance…which will be cancelled on the 31st because it didn’t meet obamacare guidelines…funny, it met my requirements!

  23. avatar tdiinva says:

    Probably not but in theory if the background check system was opened to everybody and eliminated the current ATF Form 4473 and substituted a “name, rank and serial number” type system with no data retention then I would consider the tradeoff, however, I don’t see that happening.

    1. They will just task NSA to capture all the data from that “anonymous” system.

  24. avatar Sammy says:

    My rights have been usurped enough. I like my rights and will keep my rights. Period.

  25. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

    No.
    No compromises.

  26. avatar RKBA says:

    “…shall not be infringed”

    PERIOD.

  27. avatar Nine says:

    Nope. Uh-uh. Never! Not happening. Niet. Nien. No. Hells naw!

    They’d just double cross us later.

  28. avatar Jeff Dege says:

    Universal background checks that do not create a paper trail would be acceptable. But if we allow a paper trail requirement, we’ll have reversed the presumption of innocence with respect to gun ownership.

    Rather than possesion of a firearm being presumptively legal, unless there is evidence of a specific crime, possession of a firearm will be a crime, for which the existance of the proper records in a government database is an affirmative defense.

    That’s simply not acceptable.

  29. avatar FlaResident says:

    No

  30. avatar Gregolas says:

    Absolutely not! Under the 2d amendment and the Full Faith and Credit clause, gun owners should have the right to carry from state-to-state unimpeded by local laws.
    Never bargain for something that’s yours (or should be) on a compromise that takes away what was yours to begin with.

  31. avatar Pete says:

    Nah, that’s a pretty crap ‘deal’.

    Maybe if they repealed the nfa crap on silencers and sbrs and such. Heck, they should give us full auto’s for that as well. All transfers are traceable. What could go wrong?

  32. avatar Marcus Aurelius says:

    Tell you what, if we get national reciprocity, and the universal background checks includes a clause stating that any attempt to illegally keep records of any sort that *could* be used to form a registry of firearm owners would instantly nullify the background check, then I’d be game.

    Of course the ATF’s photography of gun store books would immediately get BG checks tossed out and we’d have both.

  33. avatar Shire-man says:

    The notion of UBC’s amuses me.
    Prove to the state you are not a criminal and you’ll get a gold star for your lapel.
    Seems quite antithetical to the whole point of America.

  34. avatar John S. says:

    No and here are the reasons

    1. We would be one bad election cycle away from losing the national reciprocity

    2. What teeth would there be to punish places like D.C. , NYC, Chicago etc that pretend like the law doesn’t exist and continues to arrest people? Nothing short of revoking all federal funding by a vote from localities by a simple majority vote in the house would do. Doubtful it would end up with any teeth so it mine as well be worthless.

  35. avatar Braenen says:

    The whole purpose of the Universal Background Check system is to have an electronic registration system; be that of guns, owners or both. The only purpose is to have a list of who to visit for confiscation. The Supreme Court determined that a person illegally posessing a weapon in a State/County/City where registration is required cannot be prosecuted for failing to register said weapon as it would violate their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.

    If one cannot be prosecuted for failing to register a weapon because one is a prohibited person then the argument for having a registration scheme falls flat. It is simply a list of those in legal possession. What good is that list? The only logical answer is confiscation.

    1. avatar Matt in FL says:

      This whole “fifth amendment/cannot be prosecuted” point is one that frequently gets lost in the conversation, but is actually a very solid talking point that those of us who engage in the debate need to remember.

      1. avatar peirsonb says:

        Can either of you point me to the court case? I’d like to use that…

        1. avatar Matt in FL says:

          Haynes vs United States

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haynes_v._United_States

          That should get you where you need to go.

        2. avatar Matt in FL says:

          Oh, and here’s a writeup on it, with other citations and explanation: http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/cramer.haynes.html

          The page loads slowly, be patient.

        3. avatar peirsonb says:

          I hereby amend my “I’d like to use that” to “I’m going to use that”

          I like. I like very much.

  36. avatar Ben Eli says:

    Only if the ATF no longer mandated FFL to keep records of sales, reciprocity extended to type of weapon (one only needs to follow firearm laws as they pertain to their home state while in another state), the ATF gets folded into the FBI, and silencers and SBR’s get removed from NFA list, and local police sign off on automatic weapons end.
    And Obama has to personally buy me an fully loaded F-150 with an Iron Man paint job.

  37. avatar Daniel Silverman says:

    The simple answer is yes. And I consider myself an 2A absolutist. So let me explain before you jump all over me.
    If we agree that in fact the second amendment is a constitutional right in which all Americans have a right to keep and bear arms, then…
    I don’t believe in expanded background checks, universal, ok why not. But here are the qualifiers.
    1. Restore the ability to have home based FFL’s. States will have no say in the matter. You apply, pay your fee, and away you go. This will restore the ability for the little guys to facilitate doing background checks.
    2. National reciprocity with shall issue. State have no right to be may issue, nor can they deny someone for any reason, assuming they are not a convicted felon.
    3. NFA, gone… You want a new toy, like a suppressor, go for it, you go through the standard NICS check and that is it. You want an AR with a giggle switch, yup that to is just like getting a normal AR that we get today.
    4. Open carry for everyone. No CHL, CCW. You passed the check and want to open carry, fine.
    5. Gun free zones go away. If you want to restrict a persons right to carry, you will be held responsible for providing protection for individuals.
    6. National reciprocity for guns. We would already have an even law for keeping and bearing, but this eliminates the ability for states to do an AWB, or think that a specific type of gun is to scary. What is good in one state is good everywhere else. No more ten round limits in CA, or 7 round limits in NY. No more bullet buttons etc. Common use would be used to shape this portion. it would kill all the local state laws infringing on our rights.
    7. The law shall be enacted with a binding statement to the second amendment and no change shall take place restricting concealed carry, or the ability to armed self defense unless it is amended directly to the second amendment. This is our safe guard. If a state chooses to enact constitutional carry, with no requirements then a valid government ID is considered the CHL for that state.

    Will this ever happen. Doubt it…

    1. avatar Henry Bowman says:

      Why have the requirement of an FFL at all?

      1. avatar Daniel Silverman says:

        Well if you didn’t have an FFL then you couldn’t do a background check.
        It is the difference between a wish list of gun freedom and the reality that even my list above is probably asking to much.
        Over the last century we have done nothing but give up our rights. Getting back to a time where you could order a rifle through Sears catalog and shipped to your door, probably won’t happen anytime soon. I could see where it could happen in the next 8 years, but that would require a SHTF situation.
        There are to many politicians hell bent on disarming Americans. Groups with lots of money, that are in it for the long haul.
        Even the gun rights groups are beginning to recognize federal gun laws are not going anywhere soon. Local city and state laws are the new battle grounds.
        The various civilian disarmament groups can’t even muster a descent turn out to support their cause, but that doesn’t mean we are winning. Despite the failure to rally the troops to wave bloody T-Shirts, the machine has money and influence in mayoral and city council offices across the nation. This is the new deal.
        As we have seen with the recent passage of local gun laws in Sunnyvale, and San Francisco California, or the failed recall of city council members in Rhode Island, the battle ground has shifted. Because we really don’t know what is good for us, and the big bad evil NRA seems to have the federal government locked up, the civilian disarmament machine has moved to push local legislation.
        What this means is that the national gun rights groups are now going to have to shift their focus. Large groups are going to have to start playing with the little guys, to keep their eyes on the proverbial balls in play.
        The NRA, GOA, etc are going to have to start helping at the local level. Paying per-verbal lip service and taking up issues post fact are not going to cut it anymore. One instance using my own home town of Sunnyvale CA, the NRA should have been there threatening a recall of city council and the mayor before their law got passed.
        This was their failure. They should have flooded in funds to help fight the issue. Instead we are now faced with fighting the uphill battle trying to prove that a law is unjust, or wrong. So in the mean time the good citizens of Sunnyvale will need to suffer, what 2, 4, 10 years while things play out in the courts?
        Groups like MAIG, CSGV, and others know this. This is their new game plan. Create a patchwork of garbage laws, which will confuse and tie up litigation for years.
        Create an environment where someone simply traveling across the state will be breaking the law somewhere. This is the plan. Purchasing of ammo online will vary city to city. Concealed carry, may or may not have state preemption, and like California will shift to “May Issue”. Possession of normal capacity magazines might or might not get you arrested.
        Their idea of common sense is anything but. They can spew the latest talking points, but very few can logically defend them. Their idea is to spread fear, and create a political environment where something must be done over takes logic.
        We must remain forever vigilant, and stay ahead of the curve. The fact that we were able to kill 80% of the gun legislation in California this last legislative session does not mean the politicians are giving up. Not by a long shot. Now more than ever the citizens need to be involved. We need to block local legislation before it passes. If we don’t we will watch our rights erode away faster than a sand castle on a beach.

        1. avatar Henry Bowman says:

          I meant, why not have the background check system open for anyone to access, even absent an FFL?

  38. avatar Matt says:

    ‘Universal Background Checks’ are unenforceable without registration – therefore pointless.

    1. avatar Dyspeptic Gunsmith says:

      Exactly.

  39. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    Trading universal background checks for national concealed handgun license reciprocity isn’t exactly blowing wind up my skirt at this point in time. Depending on the particulars of your concealed carry license (state of residence, issuing state, etc.) you could very well have concealed carry license reciprocity with 41 total states (including your own state). As for the 9 missing states — Hawaii, California, Oregon, New York, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Rhode Island — I can live my life quite happily without ever visiting those states.

    If I want a Pacific Northwest experience, I’ll go to Washington instead of Oregon. If I want to visit mountains and national parks out West, I’ll visit Arizona, Utah, and Colorado. If I want warm weather in the winter, I’ll visit Florida or Arizona. If I want to experience New England, I’ll visit Vermont, New Hampshire, or Maine. If I want Middle Atlantic experience, I’ll visit Virginia.

    None of the 9 states which do not reciprocate with other states have anything to offer that other states do not have as well.

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      Oh, I forgot Illinois. Illinois has nothing to offer that the states around it do not have. And I can at least drive through Illinois with an out-of-state concealed handgun carry license.

  40. Gottlieb and his crew would take the deal. That is why they are anti-2A.

    1. avatar Dave357 says:

      Gottlieb’s point was that you will get universal background checks forced down your throat anyway, so you may as well get something for it. The question is whether his prediction is right or wrong.

      1. avatar Jeff says:

        yeah I think that was his point when SAF got behind the M-T bill earlier this year, but then he was proven wrong when the bill failed.

        Gottlieb is a loser.

        1. avatar Dave357 says:

          Gottlieb was proven wrong this time, but his biggest worry is State-level referenda on the issue. The waters are being tested in Washington State for now, but if successful there, it could spread.

    2. avatar Matt in FL says:

      You should try leaving more comments about you and your opinions, rather than simply using each post as a springboard to bash other people. It would make you less distasteful, and people might actually listen to what you have to say.

      1. My opinion is that Gottlieb and his SAF group is anti-2A. Gottlieb supports universal background checks.

        Is that better?

        1. avatar Matt in FL says:

          No, and you’re being disingenuous. My point was that neither Gottelieb nor the SAF had anything to do with this post. You brought them up, like you have so many times before, because you’ve got nothing of value to say, so you just take potshots from the cheap seats.

          I’m not sure why I even bother trying with you. I can see why you’ve been banned from virtually every other gun forum and site on the internet, and if it wasn’t for Robert’s generous policies, you could add another to the list. You offer effectively nothing to any conversation you’re in, and I’m fairly certain your absence here would not be noted.

        2. Universal background checks, Gottlieb wants them and because he wants them he is anti-2A.

          BTW, quit STALKING me.

        3. avatar Dave357 says:

          Gottlieb doesn’t “want” them. What he is saying is that we will get them whether we want them or not, and that being the case (in his view), you will wish you had gotten something in return.

          Don’t forget that they have a looming referendum in his State on the universal background checks, and guess which way the vote is likely to go if the referendum does take place.

        4. avatar Daniel Silverman says:

          I get Matt’s point here.
          I think Leonard is thinking back to the Machin Toomy bill which failed.
          Leonard, it isn’t like I don’t want constitutional carry across the nation. Really I do.
          Then reality sets in.
          The fact is Alan and the SAF got involved to try and get something out of it. When they didn’t they no longer supported the bill. We have universal background checks in CA. Yeah they suck, but wadda gonna do? I would expect to see the NRA, and SAF involved in any new legislation at the federal level. You might need to support background checks, but make headway somewhere else. You can force the issue to gain back something. If you buy a gun at an FFL in this country you get a background check, PERIOD.
          What we want to do is limit the damage, and make sure we get something of substance in return. For all those who don’t care about CA, New York and elsewhere, guess what?
          Those crazy laws are setting precedent for everywhere else. You better care!
          Look what happened in Colorado. Perhaps the battle over open carry in Texas isn’t on your mind, but it should be. How about the confiscation letters in New York City? Go ahead and bury your head in the sand. When your state passes something you don’t like, just sit back and wonder how it happened there.
          Sometimes you got to make a concession. Yeah I know we have been giving and giving for years. But if we attach shall issue and reciprocity to a background check law, then we have in fact made headway in a big way.

  41. avatar PNG says:

    No way. As much as I loathe criminals, I would be fine to restore rights to nonviolent felons, and maybe a handful of violent felons, who’ve learned their lessons a chance to get their rights back. But not in exchange for UBCs or anything else.

  42. avatar Jim Jones says:

    Absolutely not. If their proposed “UBC” was a Colburn-type verify-the-eligibility-of-the-buyer-without-any-firearm-identification-information, then I could agree to background checks. However, our opponents are not negotiating in good faith. They do not seek to restrict accidents. They only want to restrict, tarnish, and diminish the firearms culture in this country. You can not have fruitful negotiations with someone who just intends to chop off your head when you least expect it.

  43. avatar stateisevil says:

    That’s a cute compromise, when the feds have no jurisdiction to regulate anything about buying or owning personal weapons capable of being carried by a soldier.

    But I’ll make an offer to them: They can close the “gun show loophole” in exchange for national reciprocity of carry of a holstered handgun, whether open or concealed, regardless of type of ammo or capacity, with complete preemption of all government property except courtrooms and jails. I demand suppressors be unregulated and full auto’s treated like every other gun. Do that, and we have a deal.

  44. avatar cwp says:

    How about we open the NICS to non-FFLs in exchange for national reciprocity?

  45. avatar BeninMA says:

    As long as the gun control agenda is driven by people who see the laws of Great Britain and Australia as a model, there will never be enough trust for this kind of compromise to be possible. I think Dan Baum’s heart is in the right place here, but his time is better spent convincing his fellow Democrats that gun control is not sound policy.

  46. avatar BillF says:

    Just as you should never invite a vampire into your house, you must beware of any idea masquerading as “National Reciprocity”. If it ever happens, it will be no gift. The natural follow-up to “National Reciprocity” would be states developing a more universal permitting process. Vermont or Arizona will not be the model. A more likely model would be NY, NJ, Ca, or Hawaii. And just one more thing for the Feds to reach their tentacles into. Hell, they’d probably get to form a brand new agency to enforce the new slate of federal laws that would be gleefully written with input from the likes of Bloomberg. Feinstein, Watts, etc. And we’d get to pay for it with ridiculous fees for a permit that would remove more rights than it would grant. As intended but not stated.

  47. avatar Gov. William J. Le Petomane says:

    Never bargain with untrustworthy people. The government told the Sioux they could have the Black Hills. That lasted about as long as it took for someone to discover gold there. Why would you give up what amounts to gun registration to a bunch of people who are hell bent on getting rid of the second amendment altogether? What would make you think the other side would be satisfied with that?

    1. avatar Hannibal says:

      Don’t worry, they already had this debate and there was no way most of the blue states were accepting the horror of having permit holders from other states carry in their precious cities.

      1. avatar Gov. William J. Le Petomane says:

        First they’d pass a mountain of regulations and restrictions until the prospect of spending a few years in prison for carrying in a public bathroom (or something equally as stupid) convinced everyone it wasn’t worth the risk. They’d see to it that they gave up nothing and got registration in exchange. It would be different if we were dealing with people we could trust.

  48. avatar Hannibal says:

    Background check for national carry reciprocity? Yeah, I’d take that if it were written well and maintained the prohibition of a registry and preempted ‘home rule’ like that in NYC. Of course it wouldn’t make sense to have UBCs without a registry, but gun control folks never let sense get in the way of a law.

    You can all talk about “shall not be infringed”, but you will never(!) get the political process to afford national reciprocity without a bone to throw to the other side.

  49. avatar Ralph says:

    I also say no friggin’ way.

    For one thing, I’m not in the mood for compromise. I’m in the mood for a political fight, and I’m going to get one in 2014.

    For another, trusting a gun-hater is a sure sign of mental illness. They will screw us in a heartbeat.

    Finally, national reciprocity would be less beneficial that we might think. The Utah and Florida nonresident licences are widely respected nationwide, except in the northeast where states don’t recognize out of state permits and hardly grant their own. Some states already recognize all permits from the other 50 states, while some states broadly recognize other permits. So, permitted carriers in pro-gun states wouldn’t gain much from national CCW reciprocity.

    The grand bargain is an illusion, which is why it might be offered to us if we give up the world.

    People who want near universal recognition of their permits should pressure their state governments to create more reciprocity agreements. That process is already working.

    1. avatar Hannibal says:

      I suspect my opposing view might be colored by the fact that I spend a lot of time in the northeast and already have to basically have my handguns registered, so I would value the deal a lot differently than someone who already lives in a reasonable state and doesn’t have to go into la-la-land.

      1. avatar Ralph says:

        I live in MA. I have a resident MA LTC-A and nonresident permits from FL, NH and NV. I wouldn’t get much out of national reciprocity and I’m not willing to trade anything for it.

        1. avatar BillF says:

          Same sort of. NY resident permit and non-resident in UT, NV and FL. That covers anyplace I’ll be going. I’ll keep what I have before I’ll deal with the devil.

    2. avatar ropingdown says:

      The road the Sup.Ct. is on, launched with its incorporation into state obligation of the 2nd Amendment via the 14th, is already complex enough. I think it is necessary for the Supremes to handle a few more cases before we can actually make an intelligent choice, whether we should pursue 2nd Amendment freedom via federal statute or state-level action. The unresolved issues are actually very complicated.

      1. avatar stateisevil says:

        And open carry is legal in like 40 states. No license required.

    3. avatar Matt in FL says:

      “Finally, national reciprocity would be less beneficial that we might think. The Utah and Florida nonresident licences are widely respected nationwide, except in the northeast where states don’t recognize out of state permits and hardly grant their own. Some states already recognize all permits from the other 50 states, while some states broadly recognize other permits. So, permitted carriers in pro-gun states wouldn’t gain much from national CCW reciprocity.”

      This is a really, really good point. Reciprocity sounds great, but you’re really not getting a whole lot over and above what you have now.

      1. avatar John in Ohio says:

        And, it’s a recognition of a privilege in favor the actual RKBA. There’s no real gain in these ‘compromises’ since the natural right has been long recognized and enumerated constraint upon government has been in place from the start. The only legitimate action at the end of the day is for government to attempt an amendment nullifying or modifying the 2A. I heavily suspect that many in government know deep down that it has been infringing all along. I also believe that many in government know that the deception is fast coming to an end. To compromise now would be fatal for Liberty. It would be fatal for our free nation. As our government violates the supreme contract with the People at an alarming rate these days, the 2A is all that really stands between freedom and global tyranny, IMHO.

        A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state

        It’s as true now as it was then. Perhaps in 10,000 years mankind *might* evolve to a point of individual arms not being necessary for Liberty but I highly doubt it. We aren’t there yet and we aren’t likely to get there in many, many generations; if at all. The only thing that will result in any so-called compromise is tyranny. Perhaps not overnight; but it is the inevitable outcome as history has demonstrated time and time again.

  50. avatar Dirt Dog says:

    I agree that we shouldn’t have to make any political bargains to exercise our rights. However, I live in Maryland, where our rights have already been trampled over and over again. We already have a universal background check requirement (and a 7-day waiting period) for private-party handgun sales. (There is no background check requirement for private-party long gun sales, but many semi-automatic rifles are banned altogether, so that doesn’t matter much.) And, there is effectively no way to get a permit to legally carry a gun off your property. And I work in DC, where the laws are even worse. So as far as my selfish interests are concerned, I’d give up on background checks for long guns in order to be able to CCW and protect myself and my family when away from my home.

  51. avatar ilkhan says:

    Compromise. Here’s a compromise for you.
    You get to lock up anybody that commits a violent assault or murder, or even attempts a violent assault or murder.
    We get nationwide constitutional carry and no background checks.

  52. avatar Don says:

    If there was a way to do a background check without the potential to create universal registration, then yes. But if that was the case then the antis wouldn’t accept the trade.

    -D

  53. avatar John in Ohio says:

    Uh… No. No trading rights for privileges.

    Lastly, “expanded background checks and [nationally] expanded rights for those who have qualified for permits to carry concealed weapons.”

    If it requires a permit then it’s a privilege and not exercising a right.

    1. avatar Matt in FL says:

      Floridacarry.org has a case working its way through the court system on precisely this premise, with the goal of the restoration of open carry in the State of Florida.

      https://www.floridacarry.org/index.php/litigation-32/21-statecourt/70-norman-v-state

      The nickel tour: Florida courts have clearly found that the carrying of a concealed firearm is a privilege, subject even to being banned completely, not a right protected by the constitution. The Florida Legislature and Supreme Court have long recognized that there is a right to bear arms outside of the home. The “privilege of a license to carry a concealed weapon or firearm” recognized in Crane cannot replace, or substitute for, the fundamental right guaranteed by the U.S. and Florida Constitutions.

      We’ll see how it goes.

  54. avatar peirsonb says:

    By the way, that is perhaps the most appropriate image I’ve ever seen attached to a TTAG post….

    1. avatar Mitchell! says:

      I’ll second that.

      The people we are dealing with hate our guts. They have demonized us for decades. As an NRA member, I won’t forget being blamed for the deaths of those little children in Newtown. Our letters, our phone calls, and our campaign donations stop their laws from being passed.

      Sportsmen, hunters, and gun collectors are their enemy, not criminals. We must not forget that. They will never deal with us fairly. They will always move the football.

      No deals, we gain zilch.

  55. avatar Shawn says:

    Still do not want a rapist and a violent felon or gang banger to be able to purchase a gun at a LGS. They lose that right the moment they commit the crime.

  56. avatar ST says:

    Here’s what would happen.

    Playing Devils Advocate, I’ll lay out how the antis would write the Federal regulation for “Universal Concealed Carry”.

    Permit Cost $400 ,annually.
    Equipment Restrictions: Any single permit holder would be limited to two firearms on the permit at any time.Each firearm will carry no more then 10 rounds ,and each weapon will need to be compliant with a Federally determined Safe Handgun Roster. Changing a firearm requires submitting a Form 101 to the ATF with 90 day wait and $100 processing fee.

    Federal Permit can be cancelled at the will of the Justice Department for any matter related to violation of Federal Law, not limited to but including:

    Tax return irregularities.
    Local failures to pay taxes on personal property, investments ,or business income.
    Being added to the DHS terrorist watch list.
    Violating TSA procedure when travelling.
    Shooting a firearm on BLM land without clearance.

    Permit is valid for five years, with rolling background checks by the FBI authorized at random at any time during the validity period.If the holder is notified their permit has been suspended, all firearms listed on the permit must be surrendered to the CLEO until the permit is reinstated.

    Void where prohibited, all rights reserved.

  57. avatar John L. says:

    Would you trade freedom of the press for freedom of spoken word?

  58. avatar Rambeast says:

    No. Not one more inch. Time to repeal all of the infringements to the 2nd amendment.

  59. avatar Mk10108 says:

    Yes conditional on a amendment to Constitution giving the right of self protection to everyone. Tie federal funding to law enforcement offices issuing the most CCW.

    1. The Constitution doesn’t grant rights, it affirms them as preexisting and not subject to infringement/regulation/denial.
      No amendment necessary. To propose one is to cede rights we already have. Don’t go there.

  60. avatar EagleScout87 says:

    No. Because BOTH are Unconstitutional.

  61. avatar TheDabbo says:

    Hell no! Gun owners have been getting screwed over on gun control since at least 1934 (NFA), not to mention the GCA of 1968. Adding further regulation to these atrocities isn’t a compromise.

    Besides, I just don’t trust them. They will take back anything they can at the very next opportunity. (See Connecticut and state income tax/sales tax).

  62. avatar RockOnHellChild says:

    No way!

    Let alone the fact that the only states I frequent, plan on frequenting, or would ever a need to frequent, already have reciprocity. The truth of the matter is this would most help people in notoriously anti gun states, while hurt gun owners everywhere.

    I have no problem helping states that are less free with the fight, but a big loss of my freedom will not be their bargaining chip to gain a little freedom.

    And, add cities making ordinances prohibiting carry of a firearm, even with valid state permits, all and all, it sounds like a pretty crappy deal.

  63. avatar cwillett says:

    I seem to have a contrary opinion to most of the AI. I travel a lot with my family to states where my carry permit is not recognized, and where they will never enact reciprocity with other states. Most notably, California. I want to be able to protect my wife and young daughter while doing so. As such, I would support a compromise: We all get concealed carry rights (not reciprocity) subject to a minimum standard. We allow universal background checks with protections in place so that the check record is destroyed after the check is completed. Background checks must be performed as quickly as they are now for people with a carry permit (mine takes about 4 minutes).

    When I’m visiting friends and family in Chicago, or Los Angles, or San Francicso, or Boston, or Washington DC, or New York City, the highest priority for me is protection of my family. Pepper spray and situational awareness will only go far. I want to be able to carry in those places as well as my home state.

  64. avatar Dyspeptic Gunsmith says:

    OK, for those who would accept a UBC, let’s sweeten the deal a bit for us and our ilk:

    Make the UBC an open database. No FFL required to inquire, only an EIN. FFL’s get priority access, tho.

    Who has an EIN? Employers. Let employers check the database before hiring someone. They’ll know whether or not the person is:

    1. A felon. Who wants to hire a felon in any industry where people’s financial, banking, credit card or other information is used? No one. Who wants to hire a felon in any medical practice, where liability is sky-high? No one. So let employers know this.

    2. Mentally unfit to own a gun. If they’re not fit to own a gun, well then… do you want them around sharp objects, drugs or chemicals? Probably not.

    3. An illegal alien? Remember, only aliens in the US legally are allowed to buy guns, per the questions on the 4473.

    4. A drug user? Another great reason to not employ someone.

    And so on. When you run down the list of questions on a 4473 and think like an employer wanting to do a background check on a prospective employee, most employers I know say “Man, I’d love it if I could get a fast yes/no answer to all of these questions and screen out the possible future HR problems…”

    As an example of what I speak: At rental housing surrounding at least one gunsmithing school here in the west, the rental property owners are thrilled to rent to gunsmithing students. Why? Because the school has to run a check on prospective students, because in a gunsmithing school, the student will have access to lots of guns (duh! obvious, right?). Once the word got out in the surrounding community that these particular students had been NICS checked, the landlords were thrilled to have them. And, just as you’d expect, gun people are generally good folk, and pay their bills on time. Landlords came to prefer gunsmithing students over most all other renters as a result.

    So if you want to give in on the UBC, then give the liberals what they want, really hard: Real background checks that employers can use, which will insure that large numbers of the liberals’ political base will find doors closing rapidly in their faces upon implementation. It would be like Obamacare’s twin brother…

    1. avatar dwb says:

      Employers already do extensive background checks on employees. In many cases, the EEOC is suing companies to prevent employers from doing background checks, on the theory that its discriminatory. I wish the NRA and GOA would take a page from the Obama admin and argue that they are discriminatory.

  65. avatar VKA says:

    I’m actually strongly in favor of this bargain, with one caveat: the registry that is formed through UBC is held by a third party (like the NRA. I’d ideally like Gun Owners of America, but that’s never going to happen). And the government will need a warrant to search it.

    Here’s why:
    We all don’t have the right to own guns because of the 2nd Amendment- the 2nd Amendment merely recognizes our inherent rights to own weapons and defend ourselves. The Supreme Court is one heart attack in a rather plump Italian (Scalia) away from striking down Heller and all the decisions that have enshrined gun rights. For that matter, the federal government will always be one budget deal away from enacting UBC or whatever other regulation they want.

    The only defense of our rights to own weapons is OWNING WEAPONS. The more guns that are possessed by more people, the less possible it will be to take them away in the future. Every state like California and Illinois represents a risk to our rights- when the people are by and large disarmed, we are all more vulnerable to having our rights taken away. When more people are armed, the safer we all are collectively from the tyranny of the government.

    Therefore, I’m all for a trade- UBC in exchange for federal pre-emption of all firearms and ammo laws.

  66. avatar Pascal says:

    In a perfect world where the other side of the argument both understood what they were saying and could be trusted, I could agree. I am all for compromise. The problem is this is a bait and switch. Once they get what they want, UBC, they would chip away on taking other things back.

    And thus, we will forever have an impasse because the other side never negotiates in good faith. They do it to incrementally get what they want while simultaneously taking something else away. It never ends.

  67. avatar Timbo says:

    I worked a gun show this weekend in Del Mar, CA. A Deputy for the the San Diego County Sheriffs Department asked “If I voted for your 2A rights, would you give up your 4A rights? ”

    We live in a Constitutional Republic. Our rights are not supposed to be subject to a vote of the masses. We know it doesn’t always work out that way.

    We have also already arrived at this point in time trading “reasonable” restrictions on our natural rights just to have them further restricted after the fact. The other side doesn’t play honestly. I am unwilling to give one more inch. Everyone one of them can kiss my ass. Except Pelosi. I’m afraid the crazy might rub off.

  68. avatar Levi B says:

    False bargain. When they want to actually compromise, I’ll let them know what I want.

  69. avatar dwb says:

    That was the deal, and it was rejected by Schumer and Feinswine.

    Since then, Obummers approval ratings have sank below congressional Republicans, and could bust through Nixon era lows. The only reason the Dems would offer a compromise now is because they think they will need a 250 foot snake to pull their Senate majority out of the shitter. Why help them now, when they were so willing to throw us under the bus at the first sign of trouble earlier in the year.

  70. avatar Delmarva Chip says:

    The short answer is %@$# NO (as many others here have also stated).

    The long answer is a bit more complicated.

    First … background checks (as discussed in other threads) are a waste of time, waste of resources, a hindrance to the law-abiding, and are NOT EFFECTIVE at stopping criminals from getting weapons. They are a “guilty until proven innocent” system, which is a horrible type of law that is inappropriate for a “free country.”

    Second … carrying a weapon (openly or concealed) is a right, not a privilege. It should not require a permit from any state. So …

    If I was going to propose a “grand bargain” compromise plan of some sort, it’d be something like this:

    Part I (“what they get”):

    (1) States are encouraged to pass “repeat violent offender” laws. Have criminals who were previously convicted of a violent crime against another person and are subsequently convicted of another violent crime against another person receive additional penalties (additional prison time). One violent crime conviction removes your RKBA until you complete parole (upon which it can be restored); a second violent crime conviction permanently eliminates your RKBA. Allow states and the FBI to share information on violent offenders so that if an offender moves from one state to another, he can be recognized as having a subsequent violent crime (if convicted in another state) and have the additional penalty applied to his prison sentence.

    (2) If a person receives a second violent crime conviction, then they will have a “VO” mark (violent offender) added to their government-issued ID card (and/or driver’s license) that will identify them as a person prohibited from possessing firearms. A firearms dealer may ask for an ID if they choose to do so in order to verify that someone is not a repeat violent offender (although this will not be mandatory).

    (3) Abolish the war on drugs and get rid of the DEA. This will help to get rid of prohibition-related crime (including the associated violence). It will also allow those who want to get medical help the freedom to do so with no fear of criminal prosecution, and will end so many of the misguided raids on homes (often about drugs) that result in police killing innocent people.

    (4) Fully recognize the right of businesses and organizations to prohibit guns on their property if they choose to do so (this is a property rights issue, not a gun rights issue). We must respect the rights of others to control their property, even if we vehemently disagree with what they decide. However, these property owners may be sued for damages if they prohibit firearms upon their property, and someone is subsequently injured or killed on their property by a criminal (and the victimized person was prohibited from carrying a firearm and unable to defend themselves).

    Part II (“what we get”):

    (1) Make “Constitutional Carry” the law of the land. It should already be this way. No permits should be required for either open or concealed carry.

    (2) Abolish background checks. There is no sufficient justification for having to prove to the government one’s innocence in order to exercise a natural right of self-defense. We don’t do it for journalists, or religious leaders, or for any of our constitutionally-guaranteed rights. It is unacceptable for them, and also unacceptable for us.

    (3) Immediately restore the rights of all non-violent offenders to own firearms upon their release from prison.

    (4) Remove prohibitions on the purchase of guns across state lines, the restrictions on purchasing gun accessories, the restrictions on purchasing fully automatic weapons, the “sporting requirement,” etc. End all gun registration schemes and legislatively-mandated “gun-free zones.” End the need for a FFL to sell firearms and related items. (Essentially … get rid of most of the existing gun laws.)

    (5) Abolish the ATF.

    Somehow, I doubt they would accept. But I am sick of politicians ignoring the US Constitution, sick of people disregarding the right of self-defense, sick of the “culture of the victim” that too many people seem to have, and am disgusted that we even have to have these conversations at all. So, if we’re going to do a “bargain” of some sort, I’m going to ask for a lot.

    I do not trust people who say “I respect the second amendment but …” and follow that up with a suggested infringement of the right to keep & bear arms. I do not trust politicians to keep their word. I do not trust people who seek to only “slightly infringe” upon our right of self-defense. I do not trust that they will not take any information obtained from background checks or other quasi-registration schemes and use it against people.

    I question the judgement of those who believe that people should be required to call the police for help instead of being able to defend themselves with a handgun. Do they think that it’s ok for a woman to be raped, as long as it’s only for the few minutes that she’s waiting while the police (hopefully) show up? That it’s ok for a few kids to get shot while the school is waiting for the police to show up, and that’s somehow better than having a good guy armed at the school? That’s essentially what they are saying when they want to prevent good people from carrying firearms. I don’t trust anyone who seems to believe those things to not abuse any system that has barriers in place that infringe upon the right of people to keep & bear arms.

    %@$# your compromise plan, Mr. Feldman. It sucks.

  71. No, no, no, no.

    Now maybe for a repeal of the NFA….

  72. avatar Jus Bill says:

    I think it’s safe to say we’re all done compromising to gain nothing at all.

  73. avatar dutchroo says:

    I’m reminded of the old joke where a guy asks a girl if she would have sex with him for a million bucks, to which she says yes. Then he says, “Well I don’t have a million bucks, so what about five?” She slaps his face and says, “What, do you think I’m a whore?” To which he answers, “We’ve already established that. We’re just haggling over the price.”

    The of the question the article poses is to establish if there is a price the pro-2A community is willing to pay for increased infringements on a constitutionally protected right. Once that is established, then the conversation becomes haggling over the price.

    1. avatar John in Ohio says:

      +1. I use that often in this context.

  74. avatar KCK says:

    Lucy would also say to Charlie
    “Heads I win, Tails you lose”

    1. avatar William Burke says:

      Thank you for not saying, “…tails you loose.” Really. I get infuriated by that crap.

  75. avatar Rich Grise says:

    No. ANY “Compromise” is an infringement on our Creator-given, natural, human, civil, and Constitutionally-protected right to keep and bear arms.

    I’m a Radical Libertarian Loon, because I’m a Constitutional Absolutist!

    1. avatar John in Ohio says:

      Amen!

  76. avatar S_J says:

    I’ll take this deal under two conditions: Open up NICS to non-FFL’s and no 4473’s of private sales will be kept. No registries, period.

    Otherwise Baum and his fellow 2A poseurs can pound salt.

    1. avatar S_J says:

      And I’ll add:

      1) Take silencers off the NFA prohibited list, and destroy all records of currently existing silencers. Make them available to all with a standard background check.

      2) SBR’s/SBS’s. See above.

      3) If this puts national CCW reciprocity on the table, how about something similar for mag capacity? I should be able to possess, and use, a Beta-C wherever I want.

  77. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

    Not only no, but HELL NO! Philosophically, we already have both of those rights. I’m not trading one of what’s mine to keep another of what’s mine. That both are already being infringed to high hell is another issue. I won’t be complicit in my own further subjugation.

    As a practical matter, national reciprocity isn’t a high priority, though, because of other existing regulations. States can already enter into bilateral agreements on their own, or even unilateral. States contiguous to mine already have such agreements. States further out are places I wouldn’t drive to, anyway, so would have to fly; which preserves and presents a whole other set of firearms-related hassles that would make, for me, national reciprocity largely moot. National reciprocity also centralizes this decision-making authority in D.C., which reduces to one the number of battlefields the anti-gunners must conquer; giving Feinstein & Co. further control over my firearms freedom.

    Many states are such hostile territory for concealed carry that it could end up being more trouble than it’s worth, because I’d never risk going there armed. Residents of states behind enemy lines may find it so difficult to receive a license to carry concealed in their *own* state, that they’d never get a chance to enjoy the blessings of travelling while exercising their God-given right to self-defense. Taken together, this really isn’t anything worth trading for.

  78. avatar SAS 2008 says:

    National Recprocity is not a step forward for a good number of people so we would be making them do UBC’s with no benefit to them. The NFA is also not an important step forward for many people. About the only think I can think of that might make me even think about it would, repeal NFA, nationwide shall issue and national reprocity all bundled together. Even then I would be against it because it puts the federal government in the driver’s seat and infringes on states rights.

  79. avatar William Burke says:

    My rights are NOT effing negotiable, PERIOD.

  80. avatar ST says:

    Another note:those of you asking for Federal repeal of the NFA don’t realize that many states already have regulations mirroring the Federal laws.Assuming the Federal NFA were struck down tomorrow, a lot of us would still be barred from owning the fancy toys by local ordnance.

    BTW:even if a blue state doesn’t have local restrictions on NFA items, that will change on a hurry once the Federal laws end.Observe what happened in Massachusetts after the Federal AWB ended in 2004.That states AWB was originally based on the Federal language, which naturally ceased to exist after the AWB expired.The leftists launched a crash course re-write of their gun laws to ensure what was banned in 2003 stayed that way in 2005.

  81. avatar Arod529 says:

    Nope. That is absolute gibberish and could mean any number of things.

  82. avatar SFCJester says:

    Not no but hell no! How about they drop the idea of UBCs all together along with the current BC system and, and also give us national reciprocity. The way I read it we should already have national reciprocity anyway under Article 4, section 2 but apparently I must be missing something since that’s not the way it’s working out. that’s just my 2cents.

  83. avatar Yellow Devil says:

    Nope. In an ideal world, I would do away with both in a heartbeat, but since that isn’t going to happen right away, do the next best thing. Let the States decide Reciprocity and build it up to a national level. It sucks that when I drive this great nation to visit my friends and folks on the east coast, a little Socialist state known as Maryland disagrees with my fundamental right to defend myself so than I have to unload secure my firearm until I enter Delaware. But the States gave birth to the Federal Government, and should be the ones who work out the agreements in the first place. Tyranny can exist anywhere, but disperses within a truly federal system.

  84. avatar JSF01 says:

    For that deal No way in hell. We would be giving in on something that is unlikely to pass, to get something that will probably bass in the next 2-3 years any way. (what has there been now 2-3 votes on National Reciprocity bills with them all just barely missing the 60 votes needed or so)

    Now there is the possibility I Might (I want to stress might) be willing to trade universal background checks for something in return. But to have any chance for me to even consider the offer, Background checks would have to be changed so anybody can preform one completely anonymously with no permanent records kept or recording of any information on the firearm and nor forms. And in return we would have to get something really big like silencers and SBR’s taken of the NFA and the machine gun registry reopened, maybe throw in legalizing all AP rounds for good measure. That would be a fair trade, and prevent a national registry or even a defacto registry from being formed.

  85. avatar IdahoPete says:

    NO NO NO NO +1000 times

    “Universal Background checks” is the anti-gun euphemism for Universal Gun Registration.

    Registration ALWAYS precedes confiscation.

    NO!

  86. avatar DJStuCrew says:

    I don’t get the aversion to background checks. I DO totally understand the MESS of a bill they tried to pass last time and the danger of registration and other crap they try to foist on us! But the NICS system seems to work fairly well, and making checks truly universal might not be a bad thing depending on how it is done. For instance, if all sales are required to undergo a check, then NICS should be opened up to ALL SELLERS. This could be done via phone (as it currently the case for FFLs) or it could also be done online. This means that anyone selling a gun anywhere can run a NICS check, get a “proceed,” “deny” or “hold” notification and a unique identifier number that would accompany the sale, showing that the legal requirement for a check had been completed. No loopholes, no undue burdens, no FEES.

    We can check where the sex offenders live on our computers. Why not be able to check to see if the person we’re selling a gun to is prohibited or not? This is something I’d like to know, personally! And there are no privacy concerns, since the three responses (above) tells the seller nothing about the person’s record, mental history, etc.

    To me, the BG check is less about “gun control” and more about CRIMINAL control. And if such a system could be implemented as described in exchange for national reciprocity, I’d call it a great bargain.

    1. avatar John in Ohio says:

      First, you are assuming that mandatory sex offender registries operated by government are within the legitimate power of government. I don’t want to get into that here but will just add that, IMHO, they are not.

      Secondly, nothing stops a private seller from paying for a background check on a buyer. That can be done right now, today, on using the internet. Why rely on government to do that which it is prohibited from doing? A private company could always do the job. If people are so worried about it, why not pony up the money and time to create such a business? Instead, people expect the government to infringe upon the rights of everyone else and use our tax dollars to do it! I do not deal in firearms and would not subject someone to a government background check to purchase my property. If it came down to that then I would be a criminal because I refuse to engage in such actions.

      Lastly, criminal background checks aren’t really going to stop criminals from getting firearms. The more government attempts to close down a legitimate way to acquire something, a multitude of ‘black market’ sources spring to life. Seriously, if even law abiding me, as someone who fought for Liberty all of his life and truly believes that we are living under soft tyranny right now, were to become a ‘prohibited person’ tomorrow, do you think that I would go unarmed or do you think that I would find an alternate source? I have been armed my whole adult life and part of my life as a minor… I refuse to be barred the use of arms.

      1. avatar DJStuCrew says:

        I’m a pragmatist and NICS is already a fact. It’s not an idea the government (or many citizens) are going to give up. If it’s going to be the LAW that all sales are checked, then we just need to demand that checks can be run free, just as they are for FFLs now. Having NICS online would allow access by computer or smart phone, so sales could take place virtually anywhere, anytime.

        Since criminal convictions are subject to FOIA requests, I don’t see placing violent felons onto a registry is any sort of infringement. And the point of checks is to close any legal channels. Some might call it “due dilligence.”

        I’m with you in that I stay vigilant on HOW people are added to the list! I’m against dumping the “no fly” (a.k.a. “terrorist watch list”) into NICS as those on it haven’t been convicted of anything and are simply “suspect.” But violent felons? I can live with that. 🙂

        1. avatar John in Ohio says:

          So, you are saying that you support government violating the Constitution because it is already violating it, right? You further support the theft of the People’s money to carry out this violation of the Second Amendment. Due diligence can be looked at from the other way around… are you exercising due diligence as a citizen in not supporting the violation of our Constitution by government? You are complicit in government’s violation of the Supreme Law of the land in that you support of government run databases for firearm purchasers and in your support of government’s violation of the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Just because the thief is already stealing doesn’t mean you don’t bear some guilt when you support and help him in his continued evil deeds.

        2. avatar DJStuCrew says:

          Excuse me: how is it a violation of the Constitution to maintain a database of convicted felons and people legally prohibited from buying guns — arguably a police duty — and checking buyers against it? Please cite the exact violation.

          If you read my post, I also said that checks should be free to sellers as they currently are to FFLs. I also stated that no registry be created from these checks. (This is currently prohibited by law. It should stay that way.)

          It is exactly nonsense like this that causes non-gun owners to think we’re unreasonable. If we oppose a system that bars criminals from buying guns through legal channels, then WE will be seen as complicit in the mayhem they cause! Sorry, but it’s alredy bad enough that we “people of the gun” get called to account for the actions of these idiots in the first place. To deserve the charge would be even worse. NICS is already in place. It’s not going away and I see no constitutional roadblock keeping the situation from staying that way. There is some evidence that it works. That makes it a stand out, since every gun control proposal I’ve heard of does not. And as I said, the difference seems to be that the focus is where it belongs: on the CRIMINALS, not the guns. We joke that we need “criminal control,” not “gun control.” Well HERE IT IS.

          My conscience remains clear.

        3. avatar Rich Grise says:

          “Excuse me: how is it a violation of the Constitution to maintain a database of convicted felons and people legally prohibited from buying guns”

          There is no way to legally prohibit anyone from buying guns. The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Constitution of the United States, Amendment 2.

          The fact that people in uniforms and other LE minions routinely violate that prohibition only means that we have to fight not only to keep the rights they’re oh so generously deigning to allow us so far, we need to fight to get back the rights that are being unconstitutionally infringed right now.

        4. avatar DJStuCrew says:

          It’s legal precedent in nearly every country world-wide, as well as our own, that once a person becomes convicted of a serious enough crime, they lose certain rights and Constitutional protections. Should there be a way that, once a person has served their time, they can have their record expunged and/or get their rights back? Sure. But taking an absolutist stance that favors violent felons will not win hearts and minds. OR national reciprocity.

        5. avatar John in Ohio says:

          @DJStuCrew:
          It’s legal precedent in nearly every country world-wide,

          We are NOT ‘every country’… never were supposed to be. If you want something other than a free nation then Bon Voyage.

          as well as our own,

          A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. That, sir, is from the contract by which the People of the United States of America agreed to be governed. Regardless of if government violates that contract once or a thousand times, those privileges not vested in our government are off limits to our government. Our government has gotten it wrong before and when it comes to the right to keep and bear arms they’ve gotten it wrong again; just as you have.

          But taking an absolutist stance that favors violent felons will not win hearts and minds.

          I don’t give one damn about ‘winning hearts and minds’. That’s leftist propaganda that sand bags efforts to restore Liberty. Popularity does not nullify the Constitution. If you want garbage like you clamor for, get a constitutional amendment passed.

          OR national reciprocity.

          Reciprocity for what, licensed carry? Those are privileges exercised at the pleasure of government. We already have the actual right in all states. Our government is currently infringing upon it. So, you expect me to believe that a government that hasn’t honored a constitutionally protected RIGHT is going to forevermore honor a flimsy PRIVILEGE?!?! Part of the reason that our freedoms are so abused by government today is precisely because of people like you. If you want Europe, take a flight or a boat and go… please. Those of us who know what real freedom is, are not going to agree to a trade of the right to keep and bear arms for a mere privilege to carry.

        6. avatar DJStuCrew says:

          So you’re saying that the polce have no legitimate power to police criminals? Or is your gripe with any federal entity that makes it possible? THAT is the issue here.

          I’m with you in that we need to enact Constitutional Carry whenever/wherever we can. I’m against permits for assembly; I’m against “free speech zones”; I’m against the end of habeus corpus. This, however, is different as it applies ONLY to those who have been convicted or adjudicated mentally dangerous. They have been proven guilty already. And any of us standing up for them gives fuel to the anti-gun side, validating their contention that we’re unreasonable and, frankly, a bit bugnutty. Plus, if anyone thinks we can just “ignore it and it’ll go away,” you’re fooling yourself.

          Conservatives bellow about asking ID in order to vote. So what’s the big deal for asking the SAME THING simply to assure that gun buyers aren’t felons attempting to slip through the cracks? Criminal control is a valid function of government and there’s no constitutional prohibition against it. If they can convict a person and take their very FREEDOM away, as well as various rights (to vote, to hold public office, to own guns or ammunition), how can anyone seriously say that a background check is worse and/or unlawful?

        7. avatar Rich Grise says:

          Thank you, John in Ohio, I couldn’t have said it better myself!

        8. avatar Rich Grise says:

          “DJStuCrew says: December 20, 2013 at 10:36
          “So you’re saying that the polce have no legitimate power to police criminals?”

          Absolutely NOT! You liberal gun grabbers always pull out the extreme strawman in attempts to give validity to an invaled point.

          Of COURSE you police criminals! That’s constitutional. But you are EXPRESSLY FORBIDDEN to punish people for the POTENTIAL crimes that they might commit in your own sick fantasies.

          “Let” violent felons, child abusers, perverts, drug addicts, and everybody else have guns (I put ‘let’ in quotes because as citizens, everyone already has the Creator-given, natural, human, civil, and Constitutionally-protected right to keep and bear arms) and catch and prosecute those who commit criminal acts. And it has been proven every single time that more guns equals less crime. EVERY SINGLE TIME.

          So don’t give me this claptrap about mental health as an excuse for an infringement – if you think you’re too crazy to carry a gun, then don’t, but NOBODY has the authority to override the Constitution. Those who are currently doing so are criminals, badge or election notwithstanding, and there are no two ways about it.

        9. avatar DJStuCrew says:

          Why do you gotta go all bats*%t crazy and holler names when I simply ask people to clarify themselves? As a gun owner for over 44 years, a CCW permit holder and long time NRA member, I’m hardly a “gun grabber.” Let’s save the venom for those who deserve it, thanks. I’m just asking questions, one of which you answered: YES, it IS within the legal authority of police to police criminals. So we’re agreed on this one lone point thus far.

          So… we are also OK with demanding ID when voting, I take it? A sacrosanct right of all citizens that shall also not be infringed? Buuuut… because of the risk of FRAUD, we demand I.D. to make sure nothing illegal is going on, right? Is this really such a burden? (Punishment? Inconvenience?) Again, with me so far?

          Okay, so WHAT’S THE DIFFERENCE HERE??? We’re not talking about building registries. It’s just a requirement, just like the voter I.D. laws, to make sure that buyers of guns through legal channels are not disqualified. We’ve all lived through the procedure. I’ve never had a check take longer than it did to fill out the damned paperwork. (Now THERE is something that could use some reform — LOL!)

          People adjudicated with mental health issues (i.e. those involuntarily committed) are, like felons, now under the watch of the courts. Again, I would ask: is it not within the legal boundaries of police powers to police those persons identified as dangerous by the court system?

          Before talk of registries and adding all sorts of non-criminals to NICS, this is how the NRA once saw things. Hell, they co-wrote the “NICS Improvement Act” in the wake of Virginia Tech to make sure that war vetrans weren’t scooped-up in an overzealous “mental health issues” net! In the process, they provided funding to states to update the NICS database. And like it or not, it’s not going away. No official, Republican, Democrat or anything else is going to abolish it. We have but two choices: participate in making sure it works ONLY as advertised — on criminals and the adjudicated crazies — as well as making it efficiently screen out felons OR we can watch as the liberals make a complete mess out of it to our detriment. When that happens, remember this. You won’t be able to blame ME.

        10. avatar Rich Grise says:

          ““DJStuCrew says: December 20, 2013 at 10:36 “So you’re saying that the polce have no legitimate power to police criminals?” Absolutely NOT! ”

          “Why do you gotta go all bats*%t crazy and holler names when I simply ask people to clarify themselves? ”

          Exactly what part of answering “no” is it that you consider “bats*%t crazy and holler[ing]?”

          Do I believe the police have no power to police criminals. No, of course I don’t believe that the police have no power to police criminals. In fact, their ONLY legitimate power is to police criminals.

          But what’s the definition of a criminal?

          According to Constitutional Absolutism, somebody who’s sitting n the privacy of their own home, harming no one, doing or possessing or smoking or saying or thinking something that Der Fuehrer disapproves of, is NOT a criminal!

          Police enforcing unconstitutional laws are themselves criminals, and need to be stopped.

        11. The problem is, even the Obama regime’s internal DoJ reports indicate that the only way “universal background checks” could possibly work to reduce crime is if there is a registry of all guns and owners.
          And the info collected through those checks would expand their database.

        12. avatar John in Ohio says:

          Well done, Rich, and a thank you back at ya. 🙂

          I especially love this part: Those who are currently doing so are criminals, badge or election notwithstanding, and there are no two ways about it.

        13. avatar John in Ohio says:

          @DJStuCrew: You were the one starting off with sly, underhanded name calling through aspersion. Okay, I have three names to throw out there: coward, fool, and traitor.

          Owning and carrying under a license is exercising a privilege and is not exercising the right to keep and bear arms. When you actually start exercising your RIGHT to keep and bear arms, then we’ll talk. Until then, keep those training wheels on your liberties to your heart’s content. Bless your little heart.

        14. avatar Matt in FL says:

          Nothing to see here, folks. Just another example of eating our own; abusing and alienating people that are on the same side over misinterpretation of and overreaction to miniscule differences of viewpoint.

        15. avatar Rich Grise says:

          I’m sorry, Matt, but the difference between “shall not be infringed” and “may be infringed, as long as it’s just a little bit” is NOT “miniscule differences of viewpoint”

          The difference between 0 and 0.0000000000000000000000001% is mathematically the same difference as that between 0 and infinity.

          Not means not. Or is there a part of “not” that you don’t understand? </snark>

        16. avatar DJStuCrew says:

          Thanks, Matt. I guess simply saying that I don’t understand some people’s attitude is somehow “sly, underhanded” ad hominem. Asking questions and thinking for myself is somehow traitorous. And counter arguments consist of name calling and character assassination. I expected better, especially here.

        17. avatar John in Ohio says:

          @Matt in FL: Fair enough but I don’t think the differences are miniscule at all. I just got back to my desk and saw your comment. I’ll soften up a bit and back off from this part of the discussion. Thanks.

          @DJStuCrew: I fired off the comment soon before leaving my desk. I noticed that I had you confused with another person in regards to name calling but edit timed out before I could correct and had to run. My comment to you was something that I would normally have preferred to make face to face to someone instead of on the internet. I do apologize for that and I probably over-reacted a bit. I do 100% believe that some viewpoints held, such as yours, are deadly to our free nation. That’s as far as I will go from here. I wish you well.

        18. avatar DJStuCrew says:

          Fair enough. A very Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to you and yours.

        19. avatar John in Ohio says:

          (I just saw the reply.) Happy New Year, DJStuCrew. Stay safe out there.

        20. avatar William Burke says:

          Happy New Year. And, we don’t trade NOTHIN’ for NOTHIN’! Period. End of story. Concessions to non-conceders is a dead-end tale.

          NEIN!

  87. avatar Carry.45 says:

    I’ve gone through a background check every time I have bought a firearm. I don’t really mind. I like what someone said above about having the background check enable someone to procure an NFA item. But honestly I would make that trade. I live in NH and hate being disarmed any time I need to cross that southern border.

    1. That’s like telling a group of elderly nuns, “I’ve been stripped and had a body cavity search every time I’ve flown and I don’t mind, so why should you?”
      Liberty, like virginity, when gone is gone. Infringement is like pregnancy … There’s no such thing as “just a little bit”. It either is, or isn’t.

      1. avatar William Burke says:

        Superb reply, Carl….

  88. avatar Robert C. Hall says:

    No. Instead, give the banners the kind of Hobbesian choice they always give us. For example, ask them to choose between national reciprocity and, say, eliminating the NICS check. Or between NR and eliminating the entire BATFE. Or NR and [fill in the blank with any of a number of blatantly unconstitutional and/or criminally rogue item that we’d ALL be better off without]. This a sarcasm-free post, BTW.

  89. avatar Xmystic says:

    There can be no compromise with reciprocity. It was tried about a year ago and Schumer and friends said it was a “poison pill.” So what makes us think we can get reciprocity and more. We have learned in the last 5 (or more) years that the Democrats don’t compromise. It’s their way or the highway.

    Maybe once we get a majority in the Senate and House we can revisit this, but that majority is not guaranteed and could switch very quickly and then that very compromise can be exploited. So while I know reciprocity would be great for me (in NY yuck), I know it is a very slippery slope to start (or continue). Once you lose a right, it’s damn near impossible to get it back.

    We should be demanding reciprocity and the other rollbacks mentioned with no compromise, but as I said, getting a right back….

    1. avatar Rich Grise says:

      Reciprocity, schmeschiprocity! Obey the Constitution, stupid!

  90. avatar ADC USN/Ret says:

    Give something up for something the Constitution promises? Doesn’t make sense to me.

    The true people behind the set up for gun violence are the people that voted for the politicians that enacted the gun control laws! i.e. gun free zones, may versus shall, etc.

    Bloomberg, MDA, MAIG and their ilk are the cause of many of our problems today. Just read another article about MDA threatening the politicians they think might be influenced by violence!

  91. avatar Roy says:

    My problem with the whole universal background check crowd is that they’ve almost all never wanted private citizens to have access to NICS. If their “universal” meant “whoever wants to use it”, I’d go for that, because it makes government my servant: IF I want to sell a firearm, and IF I want to know the prospective purchaser’s background, then it would be their job to tell me about him.
    If they want to “trade” that for national reciprocity, I’m for it, because both those make government my servant.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email