courtesy medium.com
Previous Post
Next Post

Jon Stokes has a post up at Politico this morning, A Gun Nut’s Guide to Gun Control That Works. He’s noted the post-Parkland climate that’s seen states like Vermont and Florida put new restrictions on firearms purchasing and ownership, as well as proposals to repeal the Second Amendment or outlaw all semi-auto firearms and is proposing a fix. A grand bargain that’s designed to satisfy both gun owners and gun controllers by getting each side to give up something.

His big idea: create a federal gun owner’s license that would enable anyone who goes through the process to possess semi-automatic firearms. Once you’re licensed, you no longer have to undergo a background check when you buy a gun. Private sales included. No matter where you live.

A federal license for all semi-automatic firearms would rest on two simple and well-defined concepts, one technical and one legal:

1) A “semi-automatic” firearm is one that fires a single round for each pull of the trigger, automatically reloading in between each shot until the ammo is depleted.

2) “Possession” is a legal concept from the drug war that implies that a person has a contraband item “on or about one’s person,” or has “control” over the item, perhaps by having it in a motor vehicle or in a home.

Because both of these things—“possession” and “semi-automatic weapons”—are easy to define, they’re easy to regulate.

Combine these two concepts with a thorough but reasonable vetting process, and you have the makings of a straightforward, effective system for keeping the most lethal class of weapons out of the hands of bad actors, while simultaneously lifting the burden of arbitrary weapon bans and federal red tape from law-abiding gun owners.

Don’t want to submit to federal licensing? Fine. You can still buy and possess bolt action rifles and revolvers, but would have to fill out a 4473 for each purchase. He’s a little fuzzy on the status of lever action rifles and pump shotguns, but swing with it for a minute.

If you weren’t a license holder, then simple possession of any semi-auto weapon would be a felony. Don’t have one on your person, or in your car or home. As for taking possession of the types of guns you could have without a license, then it’s universal background checks and FFL transfers for you—basically the status quo, in most states.

In exchange for this new regime, all states will have to drop their “feature-based” bans on guns like AR-15s, “high capacity” magazines and the like. In other words, if you live in Pennsylvania and drive across the Delaware with an AR or a 17-round magazine in your trunk, you won’t be risking a few years in a New Jersey jail. If you’re hired by a California-based company and need to relocate, you can take your AK and and your full capacity G17 with you.

What if you own semi-automatics now, but don’t want to go through federal licensing? Again, he’s fuzzy, though he throws out a possible three to five-year “grace period” during which you could presumably sell or, uh, turn in your semi-auto guns (barring any unfortunate boating accidents, of course).

Gun controllers would give up their state and locally-based gun control laws. All legal firearms would be legal in all 50 states. But the anti-gun side would get, effectively, universal background checks. A full-blown, probably TSA-Pre-level check for the federal semi-auto license, and standard NICS checks on all firearms sales, including private sales, for non-licensed individuals.

Stokes’ plan, such as it is, leaves much to be decided.

There are a lot of important details to be worked out, like the status of pump-action and lever-action guns, or the specific requirements for getting a license and keeping it current, or due process requirements for restoring a revoked license. Gun control advocates might want any gun that can fire without reloading included in the licensing regime (pump- and lever-action guns), and gun rights advocates might want current federal restrictions on suppressors and short-barreled rifles dropped. These types of issues could surely be ironed out, as long as we can agree on the basic framework of trading all federal and state bans and registries for a national semi-auto licensing regime.

Oh, and about the requirement for that federal license . . .

Yeah, we’re going to fight over that. A lot, probably. But that fight would be way more reality-centered and sane than our current fights over pistol grips and barrel shrouds and telescoping stocks.

I’m not sure where that optimism comes from.

What about New Jersey’s ban on hollow point ammunition? Dunno. That would have to be “worked out,” too. Would SBRs and suppressors be de-regulated? Dunno. Maybe.

What if President Shannon Watts pushes through a may-issue regime, effectively putting an end to anyone obtaining a federal gun license?

This would be a concern, but it’s already a concern. We may have to rely on the courts for protection. The gun control side is mistaken if it thinks it’s going to immediately begin to dictate entirely new terms of American gun ownership unilaterally in November. President Donald Trump is in the process of packing the federal courts with conservative judges, and he may get another Supreme Court pick before he leaves office. So even if gun controllers can get Congress to move their way, there’s no guarantee that new laws will survive the inevitable court challenges. (Justice Clarence Thomas recently hinted that he thinks state and local assault weapon bans are unconstitutional.) Plus, there’s no possibility of a gun registry under this scheme, so no matter how bad it gets there’s even less of a threat of confiscation than there is under the current system.

I don’t think that being told to rely on the wisdom of the courts will give gun owners any warm fuzzies.

Methinks that, despite an admirable effort, Stokes has drastically underestimated both the vehemence with which the pro-gun side will resist any federal-level encroachment on their rights (the slippery slope) as well as the intransigence of the gun controllers’ desire to hang onto the strict prohibitions they’ve put in place in states like California, New York, New Jersey and Maryland.

Plus, even assuming this or a similar grand bargain can be struck, the next time an Adam Lanza or a Nikolas Cruz does what it is they do, all bets will be off. Whether or not the shooter was federally licensed, you’ll hear all the same calls from all the same people to rid America of the scourge of these weapons of war.

Or am I too cynical?

Previous Post
Next Post

237 COMMENTS

      • The commies weren’t out in force in 1994. This time, they’ve shown their hand and we’re far more heavily armed.

        • I keep hearing politicians and gun grabbers say — ” We want X , Y, And Z new laws , but we will … ALLOW YOU … to keep Z ….. if you just GIVE UP Rights X and Y. ”

          As Chief Ten Bears would say ….. ” These thing you say we will have .. we ALREADY HAVE ”

          We are not GIVING UP any more appeasements ….. N.R.A. does NOT speak for all 150 Million gun owners.

          Why not all WRITERS ask for a ‘ permit ‘ to print their silly articles ? …… It’s just common sense , give up the 1ST Amendment , I want a ‘ compromise ‘

        • exactly!
          “compromise” means that BOTH parties bring some-thing to the table….
          so…what are the gun-grabbers bringing to the table?
          if that’s not the format, then, it ain’t compromise, its surrender!

          but….let’s play along with this nice little fantasy…..
          semi-autos are ALREADY covered under the 2A and have been affirmed by not one but two SCotUS decisions….
          so…let’s say….such a federal infringement..ermm!…..sorry!…”law” were to pass….
          and..if i’m a US gun-owner…my first question is: “what’s in it for me”
          apropos Mr Ten Bears……
          answer: nothing!
          OK…then….let’s see such a ‘license’ also giving me the right to posses FULL AUTOs and “destructive devices” like, say, Lahti 20mm cannons and hand-grenades……
          now….that is some-thing that i currently cannot get from a standard Form n° 4473 ……
          so…yes!
          if you were a gun-grabber….then….you would be “bringing some-thing to the table” and i would be making a legitimate concession instead of a surrender of my pre-existing rights!

          pfft!
          these gun-grabbers need to learn ‘the art of negotiation’ b’fr MOUTHING off!
          i recommend a reading of both “The Prince” and “The Discourses” by Niccolò Machiavelli

      • “We didn’t get a civil war after the 94 AWB passed”.

        I commonly see this posted, and it’s commonly very wrong. Do any of you who spout this actually read what the democrats have been pushing since then? They’re not pushing a 94 style AWB, it’s far more aggressive. Unlike the 94 ban, the bans being pushed for now look like this:

        2013 ban Fienstine pushed after sandy hook.

        1. Have no sunset clause.

        2. Have no grandfather clause.

        3. Go far beyond the “features” ban, which was the core principle of the 94 ban.

        4. Bans specific firearms by name.

        5. Is actually a “blanket ban” on *ALL FIREARMS* that are not *exclusively permitted* in the bill, subject to deletion from the “permitted list”, on the whim of the ATF.

        Other bans proposed outside of fienstines ban since then include:

        1. Blanket bans on semi autos.

        2. Using liability lawsuits to force all gun makers to close.

        3. Using liability insurance to make legal gun ownership too expensive.

        4. Making all semi autos NFA items.

        5. Forced registration.

        6. Forced confiscation should you refuse to comply.

        These measures very much would spark a war. They go far, far beyond the 94 ban.

        • “These measures very much would spark a war. They go far, far beyond the 94 ban.”

          The central government launched two, maybe three armed assaults on assembled citizens. Why did that not spark revolution? The NFA, the 1968 Gun Control Act, and the 1994 AWB ban directly harmed no one. Yet, after Waco, Ruby Ridge (and possible Bundy 1) the people sat idly by and allowed the central government to attack and/or kill citizens.

          Legislation permanently banning semi-auto firearms will not ignite a peoples’ revolution.

        • I think the failure of the population to react to the massacre at Waco and the murders at Ruby Ridge had more to do with the limitations of personal mass communication and social media.

          Imagine if Randy Weaver had been able to live stream (especially after his wife was shot) or if the folks in Waco had been able to show the world what was happening. The government controlled the narrative at Waco and Ruby Ridge.

          The Bundy incident is a sign that personal mass communication will reduce the likelihood of future government massacres (but not elimate them). How many people read about the brewing stand off and traveled down there? I have no doubt that the government troops would have massacred the Bundy family if they had been able to control the narrative.

          • “had more to do with the limitations of personal mass communication and social media.”

            CNN was the most watched non-stop news outlet. The internet wasn’t new. Email was a big thing already.

            The issue wasn’t poor communications capability for the public.

        • Sam, incorrect again. When you say “ban”, you seem to be referring to “no further sale”, the thing is, since 13’, the antis have been on the, “no further sale *or possession*” that’s the key. I garuntee you, what happens after that, is war.

          • Please read my comment again. I did not say such “ban” legislation exists today. I took the Californication drift, the Feinstein legislation proposal, and synthesized a full-ban legislation possibility. And that if such legislation were introduced, or passed, revolution would not ensue.

            If you believe Demoncrats will be the minority in congress and the presidency forever, you will be wholly shocked when the Feinstein legislation is passed, then later “improved” by removing the “sales going forward” limit. Indeed, you will be struck immobile if Demoncrats retake house and senate in 2018 and offer “full ban” legislation, bypassing the “going forward” version.

            And the day really is coming.

        • These measures very much would spark a war.

          The most extreme of them….many incidents of violence, certainly. An actual civil war? Color me skeptical.
          But an expanded AWB that doesn’t confiscate grandfathered weapons certainly won’t.

          (And Feinstein’s updated AWB bill, as bad as it is, does in fact allow grandfathering. See: https://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/f/d/fdca734c-4855-49f3-aa1d-2ed02e791d6d/E5ECBD1B1D722D5C4AEDAEBB6276AB36.awb-bill-text.pdf).

        • And CNN was toeing the party line like they always do. Mass media made martyrs out of the federal agents killed at both Ruby Ridge and Waco and couldn’t have cared less about the innocents murdered by the government. It wasn’t like they were willing to send a camera crew into the Weaver’s kitchen and the government wouldn’t have allowed them to. The ability to livestream your face and story can not be under estimated and might have changed the outcome of Waco.

          The American people would have a harder time swallowing the idea that dozens of children deserved to die in a blazing inferno if they had been introduced to the children through a livestream.

          • We cannot have it both ways. CNN was the most watched….by all the demographics. Gun owners saw the event. They knew no crime had been committed by the Branch Davidians. The internet should have melted down from all the bulletinboard messaging and email traffic attributable to gun owners who believe the second amendment is important, that the government just declared war on the populace.

        • Can you not read what I’m typing? The 13’ ban, and other legislation bans the MERE POSSESION of the types of firearms banned. No grandfathering. Go find the legislation and read it. That’s what will spark a war, I garun-goddamn-tee you. When you ban the possession, that will inevitably bring in the forced buy backs and confiscation efforts. If you don’t think that’ll spark war, then your flat out delusional. Judging by your piss poor ability to read my posts, I’m guessing your not just delusional, but a full blown retard. I suggest you take some reading comprehension courses. Good god man. What is wrong with you?

        • Hal, then the legislation has been changed. Because fienstien was openly pushing for no grandfathering on the AWB. She made this very public. Either way, further legislation that has been pushed for by the DNC has included no grandfathering in a number of states. Trust me, they will include that in the next go around.

        • “Imagine if Randy Weaver had been able to live stream (especially after his wife was shot) or if the folks in Waco had been able to show the world what was happening. The government controlled the narrative at Waco and Ruby Ridge.”

          Mostly you are correct. But there was a large crowd of citizens gathered at the road blocks at Ruby Ridge, observing as much as possible. What saved Weaver’s life is when Paul Harvey took up his banner. That brought the Feebs attention they did not want. Gritz and others getting Gerry Spence to agree to defend was major too. Spence didn’t even put on a defense in defeating the Feds in court.

          As for Waco. It has long been the rumor that serious men whispered the words “No more free Wacos” into Federal ears. Notice they have not committed the mass murders on our soil since.

        • Can you not read what I’m typing? The 13’ ban, and other legislation bans the MERE POSSESION of the types of firearms banned. No grandfathering. Go find the legislation and read it

          Ok. Here’s the link to the ’13 ban: https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/senate-bill/150

          Quoting: “Excludes from such ban any semiautomatic assault weapon that: (1) is lawfully possessed on the date of enactment of this Act (grandfathered weapon)”

          Judging by your piss poor ability to read my posts, I’m guessing your not just delusional, but a full blown retard. I suggest you take some reading comprehension courses. Good god man. What is wrong with you?

          What’s the phrase that comes to mind? Something about glass houses….

        • “CNN was the most watched….by all the demographics. Gun owners saw the event. They knew no crime had been committed by the Branch Davidians. The internet should have melted down from all the bulletinboard messaging and email traffic attributable to gun owners who believe the second amendment is important, that the government just declared war on the populace.”

          Ummm, no. On the day the building was burned by the Feebs the lies and slanders about the Davidians were still going full force. The drugs and child molesting charges were still believed by many. I can remember being in a gun store that day and hearing talk about “Koresh and his followers getting what they deserved”. The truth took a bit to come out. It took a lot of digging by many journalists to get the truth out.

          • I was stationed in Texas during the Waco massacre. I watched the whole thing unfold via video. The “narrative” was drowned out by the fact that the federal charges were bogus. Texas had jurisdiction over all the “crimes” outlined by the feds. I knew that. So did many others. I also saw LEO in Waco, on camera, asking why the feds assaulted the compound, when the locals could have easily had Koresh in for questioning.

            At best, my conclusion is that all the other gun owners and second amendment people were just glad the raid wasn’t happening to them, and let the whole thing go by.

            As I mentioned in an earlier, maybe even different, discussion line, it is curious that the alleged and much heralded 100million+ lawful gun owners are not rising up even politically to put an end to suppression of the second amendment. Think those tens of millions are unaware?

        • Once again you still cannot read. At this point the effort is futile. Look, you can sit there and think whatever you want, but I garuntee you when the eventuality of dem controlled Congress comes along, we will get real bans. Not just bans on further sale. There will be confiscation. If you don’t think that will lead to war, then your flat out high.

        • Once again you still cannot read.

          Strong words, given that you are demonstrably incorrect about the ’13 AWB bill.

          Don’t you even have the integrity to admit that you were wrong?

        • I can’t believe that in this entire back-and-forth, no one has mentioned that the AWB was enacted 24 years ago – an entire generation. While the old Fudds of yesteryear were clearly too timid, stupid or left wing to fight for their rights, it’s clear that things have changed a lot politically. While we’re still stuck with a lot of the sackless legacy Republicans representing us, the younger generations are significantly more polarized on just about everything (you’ve got a bunch of Tide Pod-eating gender-benders on one side and what some studies are saying is the most conservative generation since WW2 on the other). If a new draconian law gets passed like the AWB, do not be surprised if the generations younger than boomers do what you should have.

        • I can’t believe its been 14 years since the AWB expired, an entire generation has grown up without it.

        • “You obviously have never heard of the 1994 mid-term elections.”

          Did that put an end to infringement of the second amendment? Repeal all the gun control laws everywhere? No?

          Not a revolution.

        • First, I was replying to the assumption that there wasn’t a ‘civil war’ not ‘revolution’. Second, the party that had been in power for 40 years was shown the door in what is often called the ‘Republican Revolution’*, and third, the ‘American Revolution’ and the adoption of the Constitution with it’s Bill of Rights didn’t stop the infringement of our rights, so why would you think that any revolution is permanent?

          *https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_elections,_1994

          • Did not a similar outcome evince in 2010?

            What changed for gun owners? 1994 did not secure an overwhelming majority of pro-2A politicians. 2010 did not.

            Political civil war? Been going on since the beginning: Hamiltonians; Jeffersonians. Large government vs. small. Ruling elite (monarchy); people trusted to best run their lives. Powerful central bank; no central bank.

            Teddy, Woodrow and Frankie did more damage to the Republic than Republicans did to correct for it in 1994 and 2010.

            And…what sort of political revolt is it when you get Dumb and Dumber facing off against each other? The 1994 and 2010 “revolts” were simply changing the faces on the same policies; big government, big spending, no reversal of ruinous policies that were the opposite of the founding principles.

            The Russian secret police went from Okhrana (Czar), to GPU, to GUGM, to NKVD, to NKGB, to MGB, to MVD, to KGB, to FSB (Communist). The names changed, the people in power changed, the secret police remained. Same with Demoncrats and Republicrats.

        • To pessimistic Sam I Am. We have shall issue CC in every state except for a few like CA, NY and NJ. We now have 13 states that are Constitutional Carry. The general public is over a majority in believing the 2nd amendment in an individual right. And the NRA is more trusted than Congress or the main stream press.

          Women are the fastest growing demographic in getting CC licenses and black people, especially black women, have had a sea change in embracing gun ownership. Women accepting firearms as being needed for self-defense will be key in maintaining our gun rights.

          Regular women, not just police women or women soldiers, in movies and TV shows, are shown using guns effectively defending themselves against the bad guys.

          In spite of isolated incidences of increased gun control
          in s some states, I propose we are winning the culture war of the acceptance of the 2nd amendment and gun ownership as a right and as something beneficial to society. This latest pusch by the leftists elitists in government and the media with the Parkland shooting for more gun control is a desperate attempt by these statists to regain control of the narrative. I believe they will fail.

          I guess we will see in November..

          • While individual gun grabbers, and their organizations, may represent a minority (which I submit is actually a near-parity) of voters today, the full extent of the movement will be manifest when the sixteen year olds of today reach voting age. (yes, I am pessimistic).

            As it happens, the congressional representation of the anti-gunners is likely a complete majority (demoncrats and republicrats). With a one vote majority in both houses of congress, we will see a scary gun ban passed (in parallel with impeachment of the president). We really do not know what Trump will do with such legislation.

            But the most threatening movement is the banking and retail segment. If enough private entities begin to outlaw guns and ammunition, the noose tightens. I speculate that none of the commercial entities will be allowed to charge unconstitutional discrimination in providing a “public accommodation”.

            The “minority” of anti-gun voters are solidly represented in the central legislative bodies. The “minority” has power all out of proportion to their demographic. I will be “optimistic” when I see that the 100millon+ gun owners are out “in force” voting for pro-gun initiatives, successfully pressuring their legislators to reverse the trend of gun control, and overturn existing regulations. 100million+ should be an insurmountable majority (but they are not. why?)

        • Well, Sam I Am. If what you say is true, then an AWB would have passed, it hasn’t; Constitutional Carry states would not keep increasing, they have; there would have been a repeal of the shall issue laws and a return to may issue licensing in many states, there hasn’t been, not in even one state.

          Even Bill Clinton said the reason the Dems lost the house and the Senate in the ninties was because of those 100 million gun owners that stepped up and voted the Dems out in reaction to the AWB.

          Even when they had Obama as the president, there was never a serious attempt to pass a new AWB. The Dems know the cost of truly trying to do something more than just talk about gun control.

          We will see in November, but I am looking to history that those same 100 million gun owners will step up and vote their enlightened self interest and love of freedom.

          • The left, the anti-everything but me gang was not mature in 1994. The have become rabid since. They don’t just try to kick down the doors, they attack from all directions, simultaneously. The AWB was not extended because of politics, not principle. The votes simply weren’t there. Change the make-up of congress, and you will get a different answer. You are currently overlooking the heavy and widespread use of Alinsky rules 8 and 10. Evil never rests. “Good” people eventually tire of the unpleasantness. Not only is 2A under constant attack, so is everything else these days. The worm has turned. Time we understand the strengths of the opposition.

          • “Even Bill Clinton said the reason the Dems lost the house and the Senate in the ninties was because of those 100 million gun owners that stepped up and voted the Dems out in reaction to the AWB. ”

            Today, there are only ~130million voters for the two major parties. The claim that 100million gun owners suddenly showed up to vote, and all of them voted against the AWB, even CNN would still be talking about it.

            What we need are 100million gun owners to rise up and declare through their votes) that they will not vote for any party that does not have removal of gun controls at the top of the agenda. That might settle the hash. Since that did not happen in 1994 (or after), I must doubt Slick Willie’s claim.

            In 1994, only 54 (10%) House seats changed hands. Only 8 (8%)Senate seats changed hands. 100million gun owners should have been able to gut the Democrat party for good.

    • Dan you communist, I’ll see you in hell. It’s time for 2A day when all gun owners arrive in every state capital with one voice. No more

        • The *problem* with the proposal is that the recent shooters all (?) *passed* the background checks, and pressed their thumbprints on the 4473s they signed when they took possession of the rifles.

          And then flipped out.

          The proposal in effect changes *nothing*.

          Including what will happen after the *next* whack-job ‘goes to town’. The feigned shrieks of horror, etc. The demands that ‘something be done’.

          I have a better solution. Deal with the shooter, not the gun. If you are a prohibited person in possession with a gun, the law cracks down *hard* on your head. Minimum sentences, etc.

          Make people who are prohibited from gun ownership think twice before picking one up…

        • You do understand that there is no federal requirement for any print on a 4473. Some states have a requirement for prints, but that is not a federal rule that you think you’re talking about.

      • Because for decades they successfully subverted the founding principles without igniting an armed response. We are so far beyond what the founders would have permitted, that people of “first principles” are seen as , “Blah, blah, blah” and not organized and committed. What’s to fear?

        We have a Supreme Court that ruled keeping product from the market place is interfering with national commerce, and thus a violation of the constitution. We have murder of the unborn supported, endorsed and promoted. We have criminal rights superior to citizen rights. We have treaties that prohibit settling disputes in our court system. And so on. Why would anyone on the left believe we would resort to violence over anything?

    • I guess this guy doesn’t understand what “Shall Not Be Infringed” means. It’s always interesting how some self-professed “gun nut” uses a weaselly apology to completely discredit a constitutional right, turning it into a government-license that is subject to the arbitrary whims of petty bureaucrats. This is exactly what our founders were against. And this guy has the balls to claim that he’s one of us? No, he isn’t. He pose all he wants to, but he is most definitely not a member of our tribe.

      • Maybe the author of the proposal is trying to find a way to reduce infringement beyond chanting slogans. While I know that mere legislation is no more effective a tool than is the constitution, the proposal seems to be aimed at a trade: “gun rights” for “safety”. The proposal itself reverses all the gun control laws. But in “exchange” for something the gun grabbers profess is their goal – reduced “gun violence” (they really want zero “gun violence” in their safe spaces, not a care toward the criminal element).

        In a world where people can be trusted to not seek invasive power over others, the proposal might accomplish its intend: compromise in equity. As it happens, the author is really proposing a “deal” with people whose only principle and desire is unending power and control of everyone else.

        I would have found the proposal more compelling if the weakness of any legislation had been taken into account. Specifically the ability and likelihood of warping “the deal” with subsequent legislation. The author seems to make the mistake that the anti-gun movement is fine with RTKBA, just wanting to make society safer along with it.

        If the constitution cannot protect our rights, legislation is really a poor substitute.

    • Oh, be nice. Just a few modifications and I could get along with this easily. For example, I have no problem with the severe restrictions on semi-auto, but the exchange should be repeal of NFA, replace your semi-auto with an unregistered, suppressed machine gun. That seems reasonable.

  1. It’s not a terrible idea, except for the part that turns current gun owners into felons.

    Really, no “compromise ” will ever work. Gun owners (perhaps rightly) fear the slippery slope, and anti gunners think a compromise is not banning all guns.

    • Compromise means, losely, that both sides get something they want but not everything. As usual i dont see anything that gun owners get, and a whole lot they give up. Now start talking about national cwp reciprocity, silencer and sbr deregulation, and opening (permanently by removing tax stamps and registration) the machine gun registry and you finally be talking about a real compromise instead of just one where gun owners only lose there freedom a little at a time intead of all at once

      • We have already seen that the second amendment is the most court-approved limited of the “natural, human and civil rights”. If the constitution presents no barriers to restriction by legislation or court fiat, what hope would anyone have that simple legislation “protecting” gun “rights” would be any more meaningful/effective? Legislation means “mob rule”.

      • I saw a lot offered to gun owners- Nationwide concealed carry and all the various bans on magazines and features removed. Did you read the article?

        The anti gun types would never go for that, though.

      • Hey, here’s my suggestion for “gun control that works”. If our supposed problem is use of semi-auto weapons with hi-cap mags in mass shootings, simply pass a law such that if a person intends to murder more than 3 people, he has to leave the hi-cap semi-auto at home and go on his little mission with revolvers, bolt action, etc. If anyone thinks he sees something wrong with that, I suggest he refer back to the original, because all his objections apply to that, as well.

  2. Um, No. I’m pretty sure a federal licensing process is “infringement” so, no.

    People have already suggested adding semi-autos to the NFA, and this is essentially the same thing, and my response to that is, no, as well.

    Here is my proposal: Leave me and other gun owners alone unless we harm someone and if we do harm someone then prosecute us for the harm caused and leave the tool out of the conversation.

    • A license is by definition:

      “special permission to do something that is otherwise prohibited”

      Owning and bearing arms is a fundamental human right.

      For the same reason, we shouldn’t have marriage licenses (and historically we didn’t), because marriage is a Divinely ordained and defined institution.

      • “For the same reason, we shouldn’t have marriage licenses”

        No one in the US is required to be married, no one is required to get a license. It is only to obtain certain government and contract benefits that marriage licenses/certificates are necessary. If the state of marriage is not sufficient for a happy life, then one must get permission to obtain all the other things that, when coupled with marriage, make one happy.

  3. I’m a fan. I’ve been advocating for something like this for years. It’s the only reasonable compromise. And it’s funny that everyone keeps claiming that this is a step backward. Maybe in a state like Florida… oh wait… maybe it’s a step back in a state like Vermont… wait…. Washington st? Nope… Oregon… Colorado…? Anyone else seeing what I’m seeing? Gun control is no longer confined to a the left coasts.

    Sorry, the frog is already in the frying pan, and the heat is at least half way up. We are losing at the state level. This is a federally protected right like it or not. There will be no rebellion to stop the steady advance of gun control because we are fragmented into 50 different regimes. Better to start over, draw a new solid line in the sand and then dare them to cross it.

    • Yeah… I don’t see what we get out of this. If this license included a repeal of the NFA and a preemption of all state and local bans, we could talk. Otherwise, they can throw their little temper tantrums and pass whatever laws they want. I’m not complying with anything.

        • ” and gun rights advocates might want current federal restrictions on suppressors and short-barreled rifles dropped. These types of issues could surely be ironed out”

        • Will that license be classified as a “may issue” or a “shall issue”. Because I have a feeling there will be quite a few people that will never see a license.

        • “It’s just a permit to own and purchase.”

          Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha! Whew. Just a permit. Just.

          Watch that first step. Its a doosey.

    • Yeah, keep your Zumbo-esque opinions to yourself, or go over to huffpo where you can find like minded gun grabbing individuals.

      Stop trying to sell us out.

      And you say it’s “just” a permit to purchase. Just like it’s “just” a “common sense” ban on “assault weapons”.

      • Good luck man. In the mean time they will just kill us with death by 1000 cuts. Freedom is quickly unlearned. Live in the real world brother. Idealisms only go so far. If you know how much time I spent every year advocating on behalf of gun rights you’d take your words back… or not… no compromise right?

        • I’d rather stand and fight than just cower like you and Mr. Zimmerman here seems to be doing by pushing this stupid idea that’s been floated since the 1990’s.

          All you do is give the antis the blades they need for the 1000 cuts by compromising.

        • And what have you advocated for?

          NFA repeal? Hughes repeal? Constitutional Carry?

          Or have you advocated for things like fix NICS and the Brady bill where we don’t lose all of our rights right now?

          I’d like to know, because I’m sick of seeing “our side” talk a big game every time we win an election or get some big gain and then all we end up with is more infringements, and then people just call it “living in the real world”.

        • Have we in the gun community NOT been compromising for the last century?

          Compromise needs to be a two-way street.

          And considering its a compromise on a constitutional amendment, it would have to be ratified by 3/4 of the states.

    • Your line in the sand, as a last “don’t you dare cross it!” line, is not that. It wouldn’t be a line in front of you that prevents any new infringements. Rather, it would be a line BEHIND you that locks in the grabbers’ gains and prevents any return of already stolen freedoms.

      All this would do is move the ball further in their favor, then give them a new set of downs with which to keep trying to move it more. The end zone for them is NOT lower crime or an end to spree shootings or reduced accidents ir anything like that. Their one and ONLY goal is complete civilian disarmament.

      Every offer, proposal, demand they make is an explicit reduction in our freedom, with not even a hint that this latest rights snatching will be the one infringement to rule them all. They will keep coming and coming and coming until they’ve confiscated all of our firearms. Then, if London is any guide, they’ll start coming for our knives.

      • I agree 100%. We keep giving the Progtards more stuff and lose more stuff in return.
        End game is all gun and knife confiscation and and a New World Order.

    • “Better to start over, draw a new solid line in the sand and then dare them to cross it.”

      That’ll have about the same effect as Obama’s red line. Once you do it once, they’ll persue. If you think they won’t keep coming for guns after this so called compromise, you’re wrong.

    • This would be a step back in Indiana.
      Stupid idea.
      Semi-auto is more “dangerous” than a pump or lever action? Really?
      More reasonable and sensible gun safety legislation.

    • Actually, I’d rather engage in a genocidal Civil War and the liquidation of 10’s of millions of Liberal Terrorists™️ before giving one more inch, let alone this abortion of a “compromise”. I say, let’s get to killin’

        • Allow me to clarify –

          “Wow, so your go to would be Stalin, Mao, and Hitler level purges.”

          Those fellows took out the *conservatives*. The ones going up against the wall will be the Leftists.

          “Cool.”

          The Leftists are the ones who are all about needing “break a few eggs to make an omelette”. We’re just using their Alinsky rule book, the one that insists the rules be applied *fairly* and evenly to both sides…

        • unfortunately going all the way back through history (not just the history of firearms but right back to club and spear and stone) that has been the only way liberty has been restored from those who would remove all rights and liberty. yes it may be nasty but if they win guess who will get purged (your mass genocide of an entire group)? it will be all those that stood on the side of the line that espouses liberty. to get back true liberty as much as we want to do things without killing hundreds of thousands will unfortunately require massive amounts of blood being spilt. in the words of one of the founding fathers “the tree of liberty needs watering from time to time with the blood of tyrants and patriots or it will wither and die”. sorry i forget who it was that actually wrote that, but unfortunately it is true no matter how far we move forward as a peaceable society. if we end up viewing it as too great an anathema then you may as well get your tombstone ready now “here lies _______ along with liberty, too much love for all humanity to do what was needed to right the wrongs being committed against society”. there are many headstones throughout history that could and should read exactly that and in all those cases liberty was lost to be one back by their great great grandkids after their kids and grandkids had suffered under tyranny. in all cases tyranny was only defeated because those great great grandkids had grown the balls to fight back, crack as many eggs as needed to regain liberty 🙁 sad part is the longer it gets left the higher the blood cost. do it early before they really gain traction and power and control and the blood cost is much lower

        • Wow, you folks really missed out in history class if you think the Holocaust and the Red purges had anything to do with Conservative vs Liberal. Mass murder in the seeking of power rarely is as simple minded as you seem to think.

          • nope they were a culling of any linked to the previous regime more often than not. the holocaust was about an entire race of people

    • I’m not an expert in every state’s laws, but here in TX your entire argument is BS. Gun control laws have been in the process of being rolled back for close to 25 years now, I expect full constitutional carry within the next 10. And I vote in that direction, as well.

  4. No. No. And No. Asking permission for the exercise or use of rights is not acceptable.

    Bugger off.

    Nous Defions

  5. Gun control actually does work….depending on the goal.

    If “gun control” means confiscating all the guns from legal owners, and achieving a drastically lowered death rate due to firearms use, then we have evidence that “gun control works”. Looking at Eurpoe, we see that almost all the places that have “strict” gun control evince a death-by-firearm statistic that is notably below that of the US. Heck, even throw in Japan and China. Fact, lack of firearms available to residents of a nation means fewer people can conduct firearms-related killings.

    If “gun control” means confiscating all legally-owned firearms will result in a near-zero incidence of gun-related deaths, then gun control does not work.

    But if “gun control” means confiscating all legally-owned firearms will result in a lower potential for “nice people” in “nice places” to be killed with a gun, well….there you have it. “Gun control” means confiscating all legally-owned firearms so “nice people”, in “nice places, will be less likely to face unpleasantness and inconvenience.

    Maybe that could work.

    • But the homicides and suicides continue in these “gun controlled” countries.

      In Brittan, voilent crime is much higher than in the United States. Suicide is much higher in Japan than in the United States.

      Gun control doesn’t stop the end result.

      • “But the homicides and suicides continue in these “gun controlled” countries.”
        “Gun control doesn’t stop the end result.”

        I didn’t propose anywhere that “gun control” would lower the overall rates of death by use of a firearm. Which aligns perfectly with the gun grabber agenda.

        Our (POTG) problem is not dissimilar from what we accuse the gun grabber of: demanding perfection, on our terms. We look at all the “gun control” proposals as having the intent to reduce the overall rate of violent crime and suicide. We are fighting the war we want to fight, and the grabbers are fighting the war they want. We demand all restrictions on gun ownership produce near-Nirvana in levels of crime, the grabbers demand Nirvana where they live and frequent. They have no interest in anything, or anyone, else.

        • I am certain we could formulate confiscation directives that we could get behind, so we could end up with a totally gun free nation. Try this; after storing all military weaponry outside the borders of America, confiscate and destroy all LEO weapons first, and once that is complete start in on confiscating and destroying all firearms from mass murderers, then armed robbers, then all other criminals. Then ask law abiding citizens to please not shoot folks. See? It’s just common sense!

          • must say i love your idea. would put govt and criminals (but i repeat myself) back in their place

  6. What’s happened to the TTAG of the past?

    Normally this douchebag would be grilled for the idiot that he is, and some of the commenters here seem to be fully in favor of the idea. I guess the sellout is in full swing.

    This is why we lose, not because of us “no compromise” people.

    • Lighten up, Doom, it’s Saturday and not all of the usual audience is paying attention.
      I have an alternative proposal:
      Only nice people should have guns.
      We can have Good Person passes issued to people that aren’t mean – that will grant them immunity from the NFA and all of the Gun Control Acts. It will serve as a Universal Gun License in all 50 states and all territories. If you travel or live in a previously oppressive state and they try to give you grief about the M2 mounted on the hood of your car, you can simply flash your pass and say, “Nope! See? Good Guy With a Gun! Sez it right here… This Person Is Nice.”
      It might need some details sorted out…
      🤠

  7. No.

    Just off the top this creates a national registry. I shouldn’t have to register with anyone to exercise a fundamental right.

    • yes it does precisely that. also if you look at the latin root words that make up regis-tration you are in fact signing your property that you paid for over to whoever is in power. that means that they can come any time they like and take it off you. unfortunately for us regular people the legal system does use words in that sort of way and makes words that they promote as being other than their root meanings to gain public acceptance. business registration, car registration etc etc. once you register something you dont really own it any more legally yet you are by fact of possession liable for its maintenance.

      licensing is very similar except that it does not remove your possessions from your ownership. what it does is removes a right and then sells that right back to you as a privilege and they can set the fee as high as they like. CCW permit is in fact a license. yes they call them all sorts of things but it does not change the fact that it removes a right and sells it back to you (a tax as every bit of money that flows from the people to the govt is a form of tax no matter what they call it) as a privilege.

  8. “…despite an admirable effort…”

    I know they will probably delete this as a flame but he seems oddly symathetic to the author of this article. He didn’t come out with the usual “Not only no, but HELL no.” fervor that I’ve come to love from this site.

    It seems like Mr. Zimmerman here is in favor of some sort of federal licensing scheme/registry, and is trying to test the waters.

    Is that what I can expect from this site now? Shilling for gun control? If so you’ve lost me forever.

    A reply would be nice but I know I’m not gonna get one. There’s elitism on our side too and us “no compromise” folks just aren’t in the in crowd. I’ll just be told to shut up, sit down and eat from the “compromise shit sandwich like I’m supposed to.

    I’m truly disappointed.

    • “It seems like Mr. Zimmerman here is in favor of some sort of federal licensing scheme/registry, and is trying to test the waters.”

      Since when does presenting something other than, “RTKBA!”, “Molon Labe !”, “cold dead hands”, “DRT (dead right there) !” equate to endorsing anything?

      • I mean back when RF ran things here, he would’ve either not given this tool the time of day, or he would’ve straight up made fun of him while tearing his “argument” to shreds.

        Now not only is this guy given a voice here with his anti-freedom bullshit, it’s being presented as a legitimate argument.

        Zimmerman seems to be going the compromise route where “we” negotiate how much freedom we lose. He doesn’t seem to be pushing for repealing any bullshit laws or expanding freedom.

        So once again, I guess the sellout is in full swing here too.

        • “Now not only is this guy given a voice here with his anti-freedom bullshit, it’s being presented as a legitimate argument.”

          I agree. This blog should not permit any viewpoint other than the hackneyed, tired, lifeless, meaningless sloganeering demanding absolute adherence to unrestricted possession of firearms. Such has been so effective that we will never hear of regulation and legislation at the local level denying second amendment rights, never hear of cities refusing to do business with gun owner organizations, never hear of state and local taxes on guns and ammunition, never hear anywhere that name brand businesses would refuse businesses with gun owners and support organizations, would never see national legislation proposed that would make all semi-automatic weapons outlaw.

          None of the above will happen if we just refuse to find new and effective ways to promote and protect the second amendment.

          “Come and take it” worked so well for the “gringos” at Goliad. Such attitude should serve us well today.

          Maybe.

          I guess.

      • And cowering in the corner and supporting assault weapons bans, background checks, completely and forever ceding ground on machine guns in the vain hopes of avoiding worse laws is much better?

        Unless you’re for “common sense” laws too because you don’t want to have to be uncomfortable defending an unpopular and taboo subject.

        As for giving this idiot a voice, he has a voice in the entire MSM.

        Oh, and “Come and Take It” was at Gonzales; not Goliad. Read up on your history.

        • “Oh, and “Come and Take It” was at Gonzales; not Goliad.”

          I did misidentify the location. The point remains, slogans aren’t effectively protecting the second amendment. They are failing all along the line.

          It wasn’t a slogan that protected the cannon at Gonzales. It was commitment of the Texicans. Action, not words.

          If slogans were effective, all 100million+ gun owners would be a uniform chorus blasting the central government. A uniform chorus demanding legislators end the war on the second amendment. Why are there only a handful of gun owners interested in stopping the erosion of an enumerated right. The anti-gun movement believes they can “beat the NRA”. They would not even spend a brain cell thinking they could beat 100million+ gun owners. At those numbers, maybe, just maybe slogans would work.

    • Twice now you’ve suggested that Zimmerman “seems like” he’s in favor of this idea. I quote:
      “What if President Shannon Watts pushes through a may-issue regime, effectively putting an end to anyone obtaining a federal gun license?”
      “Stokes leaves much left to be decided.”
      “What about New Jersey’s ban on hollow point ammunition? Dunno. That would have to be “worked out,” too. Would SBRs and suppressors be de-regulated? Dunno.”
      “I’m not sure that relaying on the courts will give gun owners much comfort.”
      What in there makes you think that Zimmerman is in favor of this? “Seems like” he’s scoffing at it to me. Perhaps you could use some practice at reading comprehension? “Seems like” so.
      No offense meant. I’m a fellow absolutist, but if we act crazy, we give all of us a bad name.

      • Maybe I’m just used to more confrontational commentary.

        Maybe I’m used to feeling disappointed and betrayed everytime the leadership or ownership of a good thing happens and it all goes to shit.

        Maybe I’m tired of seeing the sellouts of the past year and yearn for an intellectual sanctuary where I can float ideas of expanding freedom without being told to shut up and be real about the world.

        Or maybe I am stupid, and just need to leave.

        • No, I think it’s choice number two. Hypersensitivity to everything because of numerous betrayals going back decades. I think if you read this post closely you would agree that this type of offhand scoffing is typical of Zimmerman, while Farago’s style was much more direct.
          But Zimmerman cannot become Farago, just because he left. We might wish it to be so, but that’s not the way the universe works. Zimmerman has to be Zimmerman, the same as you and I have to be what we are.
          Look at it this way, if this site sells out, then it will just fail, and then Farago, or someone like him(maybe even you… or I) will just start a new blog and continue on. Individual actors change over time, but the signal cannot be stopped.
          At stage two of the 8 stages of civilization, which is where I believe that we are(not #7, as Veteran’s Today thinks), the people gather their strength for the next step( Courage), which is the one where the people throw off the yoke of tyranny(yet again) and proceed on to liberty and abundance. Whether or not we will then stop allowing that abundance to create apathy and dependence, or just go back around the track again for lap 1234… we’ll have to wait and see.

        • Thank you. You’re right. I’ve gotten used to the past few years of a certain style of commentary.

          I apologize.

          I really am not sure where we’re at as a civilization, I think we’re constantly on the verge of being pushed over the edge to a dystopian tyranny, and I certainly think most Americans will willingly and blindly accept it.

        • “Maybe I’m tired of seeing the sellouts of the past year and yearn for an intellectual sanctuary where I can float ideas of expanding freedom without being told to shut up and be real about the world.”

          Have you been told, by Dan, to shut up and go away? Been here a coupla years, and have not read anything indicating that Dan is a “squish”.

        • Doomguy: Think nothing of it. No apology needed. You never attacked me. I just recognize where I think you are because I’ve been there as well. I hated the peanut farmer so bad that I danced in the street with Reagan’s election, who I voted for in 1980 as the first vote I was ever old enough to cast. And then watched in horror as both he and GHW Bush, with the willing help of the NRA(that was the end of my membership in that club of fudds), proceeded to gut my rights worse than the peanut farmer. And then Bubba Clinton and his horrid witch of a wife piled on yet more injuries with an uncountable number of insults. Oh yeah, I’m very familiar with betrayals and the bitter aftermaths.
          But somewhere along the way, I discovered hope. And now, we have to keep up hope, because the minion’s of the world’s controllers have stolen everything else. Keep up hope, brother… remember it’s always darkest right before the dawn.

      • “Wow. I am humbled by your reply to Zimmerman above. Seldom indeed do I have the honor to correspond with anyone willing to admit to an honest mistake. That takes a courage that is all but extinct in today’s world of snowflakes and smartphone zombies. If(or when) the time comes, I for at least one, will have your back. Unless, OFC, you end up having mine…”

        Thank you. And if/when that time comes I’ll have your back as well.

        • Thank You;
          With someone of courage behind me, I’m happy to take the point. In fact, I kind of like it. I can sort of feel it, on my neck, whenever someone is concentrating on me. It might sound like BS, but I think it makes me a good point man.

    • What did I write above that gave you the impression that I’m for this. The plan has more holes than Sonny Corleone. And it would turn a lot of law abiding gun owners into felons.

      So please, tell me how presenting this guy’s proposal for our esteemed readers constitutes support of the plan.

      • When I first read the article of yet another “gun nut” pushing for the same tired old ideas that have been around for the past 30 years and presenting it as the next big thing got my dander up and after seeing phrases like “assuming a grand deal could be struck”, just left me feeling frustrated. It’s no excuse for being an idiot though.

        Going back and having reread, I realize that you were tearing his argument apart.

        I am truly sorry for shooting my mouth off like that, and I appreciate you replying.

        • Wow. I am humbled by your reply to Zimmerman above. Seldom indeed do I have the honor to correspond with anyone willing to admit to an honest mistake. That takes a courage that is all but extinct in today’s world of snowflakes and smartphone zombies. If(or when) the time comes, I for at least one, will have your back. Unless, OFC, you end up having mine…

    • I have a crazy idea. Maybe Dan was leaving some room for you all to draw your own conclusions. Have a discussion – as you are – and hash it out.

      I don’t see a single moment where Dan gave an inch. Having some respect for a fellow writer by presenting his ideas without tarring and feathering him is not selling out, it’s the right thing to do. You’ll find I can be intensely rabid about gun rights but I try to keep my articles largely professional. Get me going and it’s all “raze the village and leave no survivors” but I try to keep the worst of my intensity outside my published work This is not a certain conspiracy theorist site which shall not be named…

      • Rabid raging about “rights” releases righteous retribution on recalcitrant wretches refusing to reply with repetitive regurgitation of rigid rhetoric.

        (Yeah, had to open a second six-pack to get through that one).

        • Man, I had to re-read that to discern your meaning, SamIAm. I am duly impressed.

          Eh, I’ll keep the raging to myself. Mostly. Ever so often a bit slips through.

        • Kat, let me get this straight. You are claiming to have RE-READ “Rabid raging about “rights” releases righteous retribution on recalcitrant wretches refusing to reply with repetitive regurgitation of rigid rhetoric.”?

  9. Dumbest shite I’ve heard SO FAR today. A permit to own a gun?A “special” license for a semiautomatic pistol? Eat me. I have a FOID in Illinois. Unconstitutional BS abounds…how about we win for a change?!? Oh and Zimmerman didn’t write it…comprehension is a thing😄