“We are going to show this Governor how common sense and leadership should work, instead of Governor Malloy’s continual mismanagement of state funds and his outright bigoted hatred towards those who possess the means to defend themselves in Connecticut.” And so Connecticut Carry proposes the following reforms to their state’s permitting process [via ammoland.com]:
1. Remove pistol permitting responsibilities entirely from municipalities. Currently, the municipalities have a majority of the burden in the application process, and that work is entirely useless in terms of public safety.
2. All permits would be issued directly, the same day at the Special Licensing and Firearms Unit (SLFU) at DESPP headquarters in Middletown, Connecticut for a flat application fee of $100 which includes the $16.75 IAFIS query fee. No state background check fee (currently $50) is authorized by law anyway, and this is a good time to eliminate that illegal fee.
3. SLFU already conducts the same IAFIS checks and their own instant in-house state conviction history database search imediately when an application is submitted. IAFIS is guaranteed to return fingerprint results in less than two hours. Pistol permit issuance times are thus decreased from months to a few hours, reducing employee processing expense, time and effort.
4. Remove any and all ‘suitability’ requirements from the Connecticut General Statutes, which are catch-alls that allow local issuing authorities to deny people their right to armed self-defense on arbitrary and capricious grounds, which are often overturned on appeal at the Board of Firearms Permit Examiners.
Or . . . Constitutional Carry for the Constitution State, home to the leading light for federal gun control, Senator Chris Murphy? If this isn’t the time for The People of the Gun to stake their claim to the full protections created by The Second Amendment, when is?
When has Compromise ever benefited us? The Antis see compromise as the next step to their goals and they will be back for more till they get everything they want.
Agreed. We’ve been “compromising” since the 1930’s. Gun owner control groups don’t want compromise or common sense gun laws. They are just talking points and lies to manipulate the uninformed. Their ultimate goal is a disarmed populace and a police state.
You nailed it. Not one more inch.
Not One Step Backwards!!!!!!
Yep. +1000.
Norinco Jay and ARchambers win the Intertubez today!
Norinco- “Their ultimate goal is a disarmed populace and a police state.”
You just described the NRA perfectly.
The problem is we have been compromising in the wrong direction. Compromise when it suits us and takes back some ground and the next day start a new campaign to grab some more. Classic anti style we are in it for the long game
If you always “move to the middle” as your enemy is leading you to the slaughter house, where will you end up over time?
Time to over ride the states and the laws/bans. The left is out of control.
We should have compromise with anti gunners, we ask for a open range in every town, and compromise with most, and settle for 1 modern high quality indoor range every 10 miles.
Go big. You have the numbers and–literally–the guns. Let the Proggies remember Lexington before they go all gun-grabby.
The MOOSE-leems are onto something when they stack up a few bodies every now and then to show people they mean business and won’t be lightly insulted or threatened.
When Jefferson spoke about the tree of liberty, he said it needed blood “from time to time.” Waiting for a plant to nearly die, then trying to drown it in water is not the best way to garden. It’s also a poor strategy for guarding liberties.
That’s always been my problem with the “…and then EVERYONE will put their foot down and we’ll have another Concord” belief. No, everyone won’t. Most will continue watching the Kardashians. That’s the truth, whether they pass a gun confiscation bill or make all the Jews register with the state.
If you’re wondering how big the group of people who might “do something” is, the regular visitors of this website might be a good first estimate, but if doing the right thing is a death sentence the number is much lower.
That’s why I’ve always thought the whole “law abiding” fetish in the gun community was not a helpful one. Anyone who’s ever accomplished something meaningful and good in life has been called a traitor or law-breaker, and half the time, technically they are. (See Jefferson, see MLK, see Ghandi, etc)
Uncle- “That’s why I’ve always thought the whole “law abiding” fetish in the gun community was not a helpful one.”
Take a look at the Friedman v. Highland Park assault weapon ban lawsuit funded by ISRA (Illinois state rifle association, the state tumor of NRA) If the phrase “law abiding” is not used at least ten times, I’d be surprised.
This is the Massad Ayoob mindset of aging baby boomers that are stuck in 1972. According to this fantasy, “law abiding” gun owners are “on the same side” as police, because they are “the good guys.” The continued existence of corrupt corporations like ISRA depends solely on the age and feeble mental state of their members.
Richard Pearson & ISRA didn’t lift a finger to promote concealed carry in Illinois for at least forty years. When questioned, they told members, “It’s not the right time.” When Pearson had a small part in conning Otis McDonald into signing on to Alan Gura’s lawsuit against the city of Chicago, he later came to hold the idea that concealed carry in Illinois was his idea all along.
When it came time in 2013 to pass a concealed carry bill in Illinois, Pearson & ISRA did what they always do: lose.
They loaded up state Rep. Brandon Phelps concealed carry bill with every piece of garbage that the police unions wanted: an unlimited privacy waiver, an unelected Star Chamber concealed carry licensing review board to hear anonymous police objections to applicants, criminal penalties of SIX MONTHS or ONE YEAR in jail for hundreds of gun-free zones, and Duty to Inform, so police criminals can execute licensed citizens at will.
Read any ISRA press release from Richard Pearson, and if you don’t see the phrase “law abiding gun owners” I’d be surprised. The brain dead losers who send money to ISRA represent everything that’s wrong with gun rights.
Go to the next GRPC and meet Richard Pearson. You cannot understand how unimpressive these turds really are until you see them in person.
Michael Bane often talks about this. Compromise is a bad deal for gun owners…always. For 50 years, we’ve been progressively moving closer and closer to the position that control advocates want.
Everytime we compromise, we continue to move to their side. If they are at 0 and we are at 100, we “compromise” at 50. Next time we “compromise” at 25. Next time, 13…and so on. You get the idea.They ALWAYS ask for more.
I’d be fine with a real compromise. If they want background checks at gun shows, okay, let’s talk about that… we want X and Y (say, carry reciprocity and NFA repeal). We might be able to work out a compromise.
But no, no more ‘compromise’ in the sense they use the word.
Kris- “Compromise is a bad deal for gun owners…always. For 50 years, we’ve been progressively moving closer and closer to the position that control advocates want.”
We haven’t been compromising with control advocates, but NRA has. When NRA state lobbyist Todd Vandermyde cut the deal with the Illinois Chiefs of Police to place Duty to Inform in the “NRA backed” concealed carry bill in 2011, Tim McCarthy of Orland Park was president of the IL Chiefs.
That’s the same Tim McCarthy who was a Secret Service agent when President Reagan and Jim Brady were shot, and the same Tim McCarthy who has been promoting gun control with Jim & Sarah Brady for the last forty years.
NRA, Inc., the gun control orgs, and the anti-gun police unions are all on the same side: against you and advancing the criminal police state.
“Compromise” in the fight up to this point has meant we’re restricting your rights, but the compromise is you still get to keep your rights in some watered-down, INFRINGED upon form.
That ends. You want compromise? Fine, Actually give us something we want in exchange. You want UBC’s? Great, make it easy for anyone to do so we can take FFL’s out of it, and if I’m approved, I get whatever I want – rip up the NFA. And if I’m “approved” It’s good in all 50 states.
+1X10^1000
Compromise on our part has typically been in the form of “don’t beat me too badly!” Very seldom has there been an actual exchange of ideas.
If UBCs are so great at combating crime then fine – if we subject ourselves to UBCs, then there’s no need to vet – again – gun owners who want to carry. Ergo, Constitutional Carry – eliminate the redundant checks for a carry permit.
If we’re compromising for that, it should include Constitutional Carry of a suppressed select fire SBR with a 100 rd mag.
Compromise and permit or allow should never be used in conjunction with natural, civil, and Constitutionally protected rights.
Compromising with your attacker only emboldens them. Compromise for just the tip and you’ll get the shaft.
Well said. And funny too!
Want to see what compromise gets you? Boy Scouts of America
No compromise! Shoot for the stars and you’ll hit the moon…
The antis have defined compromise as “we take some of your rights now, and the rest later.”
I’m done with “compromise”.
Don’t know why anyone would want to “compromise” with people who want us all helpless – and preferably dead. They’ve got nothing I want.
Forget compromise. The only “compromise” that commie gun grabbers should get is the choice of which side of the helicopter they get to get thrown out of.
http://www.everydaynodaysoff.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Illustrated-Guide-To-Gun-Control.png
I was looking for that exact page to post here. Thank you.
Well, gee.
Lemme think about this a sec… OK.
I ask myself, (that handsome devil!) what would Shannon and the rest of the ‘Mad Cow’ mommies do if they were the ones who won the 2016 election and were in control of the House, Senate, and White House?
Remember the (snort!) ‘Affordable Care Act’, the legislation that would be the cornerstone ‘Legacy’ of the Obama administration, passed into law with a procedural ‘trick’ known as ‘cloture’?
Bet your ass the would have done the same damn thing to gun rights, with the ultimate unspeakable horror of having a SCOTUS packed by the HildaBeast with ‘Progressive’ traitors to back it up for DECADES.
Fvck that, and fvck them with zero lube.
We go for *all* of it, as they would have gleefully done it to us…
TTAG, if you don’t find a way of posting this actual picture (not just a link), you are doing your users a disservice! EVERYone needs to see this! I am surprised there hasn’t been more comments on it yet! WHAT ARE YOU PEOPLE DOING!?
err…very pleasant cartoon. I enjoyed it immensely.
You can no more “compromise” with the anti-gun cult than you can with a saltwater crocodile. He make take an arm… to start, but he’s after the the whole thing.
The Bielski brothers didn’t “compromise” with the Einsatzgruppen or the Partisanjaeger. I have no more intention of “compromising” with the anti-gun cult.
Compromise with the same people that think me, and others like me are the the cause of all the world’s ills? Gee, why wouldn’t I want to be disarmed in the face of such an enlightened bunch?
I don’t even remember when New Jersey decided to “compromise” and limit magazine capacity to 15 rounds. But back in 2014 the politicians wanted to “compromise” some more and further bring that down to 10 rounds. Because, you know, only criminals want more than 10 rounds. I’m not sure now what benefits we the gun owners were getting in that “compromise” deal, but I think it was jack and sh!t.
As a lover of the Constitution, I’m in the right, but sure I’ll compromise. I’ll move to the side just a bit so you can stand where I stand.
I would like an 80 watt phase plasma rifle, but I’ll compromise on something in the 40 watt range.
In life, there are times to compromise, when both sides have a legitimate interest to protect. Then there are times to stand on principle. The right to keep and bear arms is a principle important enough to stand on.
Did not civil rights activists compromise with that whole “separate but equal” thing?
“In life, there are times to compromise, when both sides have a legitimate interest to protect. Then there are times to stand on principle. The right to keep and bear arms is a principle important enough to stand on.”
Deep Thoughts from the good old boys who sold out Otis McDonald in Illinois’ 2013 concealed carry bill. Are you growing out your beard for the IGOLD March of the Hicks- 2017 at the state Capitol in Springfield?
You guys are going to introduce legislation to abolish the unelected Concealed Carry Licensing Review Board, right? There are only about 2,000 people waiting for their licenses after an anonymous objection from police. But they probably aren’t good old boys like you who know the secret handshake.
It’s been time to ditch compromise since 1934.
No compromises, at least not in the sense the antis mean: “You give up more firearms freedom now, and we’ll wait until later to take more. Deal?” No F’ing way!
Now, if you mean compromise as in the pace and processes for restoring 2A rights to their original form, I’m listening. The only compromise I’m interested is in deciding which laws to repeal first.
It depends on what you mean by compromise. I am loathe to use sports metaphors but…
You can’t get into the end zone on every play and sometimes the other team does actually have the ball. While the TD is nice some times you have to accept that shorter yardage and get the first so you can take another shot at a long play.
If that’s the compromise, I’m OK with it because we’re still getting forward progress. The problem is, since I’ve been paying attention, we’ve been letting the other team kick field goals and calling that acceptable because they didn’t get a TD.
We need a two pronged approach where if our plays fall apart due to a blitz we read the play and move to a shovel pass for the first down. At the same time we need to concentrate, at first on easy plays that gain yardage and put us in a first an inches situation. See my previous comment on Sun Tzu’s types of ground.
“Compromise”
“Shall not be infringed”
“You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”
– Inigo Montoya
Back in the 90’s, when I was a regular at the Second Amendment Society meetings in a a law office in San Francisco where Don Kates and others of the RKBA persuasion would hold forth on the state of RKBA in the Clinton administration, Don liked to point out that gun owners only saw “compromise” in one dimension: giving the anti-gunners only part of what the anti-gunners wanted – therefore, the anti-gunners were always winning, just by smaller increments.
Don pointed out that there were other types of compromise that could be strategically offered that would make gun owners look very reasonable, but stop the anti-gunners’ forward progress.
eg: “You say you want national background checks? OK, well, you give us repeal of the laws preventing ownership of guns in DC.” In the 90’s, that would have been a Big Deal, before Heller. The NRA never took up Don’s idea at that time.
Today, we could come up with compromises such as:
“You want private sale background checks? OK, then we want national CCW reciprocity in return.” Or, CCW in DC, CCW in federal buildings, or repeal of the Hughes Amendment, or silencers taken off the NFA, or… insert your favorite issue that will make anti-gunners go ape here.
Now, there’s no shortage of gun owners and RKBA advocates here who will absolutely lose their minds at these suggestions. Calm down. Most of you are new to this issue, and don’t know how the anti-gunners’ minds work.
Allow me to step back for a moment here: The RKBA issue has been a two-track issue: first, in the SCOTUS, where we’ve had good success in Heller and MacDonald. We’ve accomplished the two huge objectives that Don used to say needed to be achieved as the bedrock of all future fights over this issue – clear, unequivocal recognition of the Second Amendment as recognizing and individual right (putting the “states’ rights” fabulists out of their misery) and incorporation of the Second down upon the states. Heller took exactly the approach that Don had been advocating all through the 90’s, and Alan Gura won with that strategy when the NRA’s lawyers didn’t want to advance the issue.
But the second track of RKBA is the public relations issue. We need to educate and inform the public, and while we’re doing this, we need to look reasonable, well informed, and genuinely interested in solving problems. The anti-gun people aren’t noted for their flexibility – or manners, taste, class or breeding. We’re making progress on this second track, but at a much slower pace.
When we compromise in only one dimension (what I like to call the “I’ll let you stick the knife in my back only a little bit” approach to compromise), people get furious. The NRA and others have been playing the “we let them stab us only a little bit” approach for far too long, and RKBA people are understandably pissed off. But if we play horse trader, ie “OK, you want X, but you must to give us Y in return,” then two things happen:
1. We get to advance our agenda. National CCW would be nice, so would being able to carry on airlines, or in DC, or any other of a host of issues we want. All of these issues are unacceptable to the anti-gun people and their cronies in DC. By saying “OK, we’ll sign on to a bit of your agenda – but you have to sign on to some of ours,” we look more “reasonable” in the eyes of the public.
2. Because what we’re asking for in our quid-pro-quo is absolutely unacceptable to the anti-RKBA people, their entire legislative idea goes nowhere – as long as we make it absolutely clear that without quo, there will never be any quid.
The anti-gunners are so unhinged and so emotionally wrought over the issue, that as long as the quid-pro-quo involves them having to issue CCW’s in their little blue enclaves, honor out-of-state/area CCW’s in their little blue enclaves, allow guns to actually be owned and carried in DC – their proposals, tied to ours, will go nowhere. We look reasonable and we can honestly say “We tried to compromise, but the anti-gun people were both intransigent and inflexible…” while looking like the adults in the room.
The issue of CCW in DC is a big one. The anti-gun legislators view that as an assault on their own persons, and they just refuse to go for any relaxation of the DC gun control agenda. I can make any anti-gun proposal fail in flames on Capitol Hill by quid-pro-quo’ing it with a shall-issue DC CCW law that allows you to carry into federal buildings.
I kinda agree. However, there is also the trap of the other side having no intention tofollow-through.
The famous example being Reagan agreeing to amnesty in return for border security- but the left never followed through on their end of the “compromise.”
Any compromise must have contingencies in place to assure parties follow-through.
““You want private sale background checks? OK, then we want national CCW reciprocity in return.” Or, CCW in DC, CCW in federal buildings, or repeal of the Hughes Amendment, or silencers taken off the NFA, or… insert your favorite issue that will make anti-gunners go ape here.”
I fail to see any potential benefit to such a deal. It’s allowing an infringement in all states while removing an infringement in a few states. National CCW reciprocity would be a wonderful thing but it would only benefit those who travel to blue states. I don’t see any red state Congressmen signing on to that. Their ox isn’t being gored.
You seem to be proposing a bluff, assuming they would never go along with it and hand us a P.R. victory in the process. I think it would be pretty hard to spin it the way you describe.
CCW in DC/federal buildings isn’t a bluff. I know, a priori, that the anti-RKBA people will never agree to it. If I were demanding that I be able to sleep with their wives and sell their children into slavery, then there’s a chance they’d agree. That would be a bluff.
In my version of “compromise,” I pooch the deal while looking “reasonable.”
If you go along to get along you get led on a lead.
Asking us to compromise on any right (including our right to keep and bear arms) is flat-out criminal. Why? Because requests for compromise on our rights is always under coercive circumstances.
The aggressor demands something — for which they have no righteous claim — under a threat of grave consequences for non-compliance. But the aggressor risks suffering some unpleasantries if you fail to comply so they offer a “compromise”: you give half of their demands “willingly” and your aggressor promises not to enact those grave consequences. This is the exact same dynamic as rape.
It is wrong when a man demands that a woman “compromise” and have sex “willingly” in lieu of murder … and it is wrong when a political group demands that we have gun control in lieu of total disarmament (both of which come with promises of imprisonment/death for failure to comply).
Getting rid of the local municipality burden would be a BIG boon to prospective gun-owners in the Constitution State. One town in which I lived (while I was trying to get my CCW) required three letters of recommendation from non-family-members and never responded to my calls trying to schedule a date for fingerprinting/interview for the permit.
I didn’t realize human rights were up for compromise and negotiation.
When will those who claim to be on our, the pro-Freedom side, ever learn that you CANNOT compromise with those who don’t negotiate in “good faith”? Anyone on the (our) pro-2nd Amendment side who advocates “compromise” is a traitor to the cause and should be immediately expelled from our ranks, if they are an elected official they MUST be put out to pasture.
Democrats/Progressives/Liberals aka the “Anti’s” follow Sol/Saul Alinsky’s rules to the letter as outlined in the Left’s handbook “Rules For Radicals”. Once they determine what they want they demand 100% and settle for 33 1/3% the first time they then come back within a few years demanding the remaining 66 2/3%, accept 33 1/3% then wait a few more years for us to become complacent and accustomed to violations of our rights ultimately returning a third time insisting since we “compromised” in prior instances that we surrender the last 33 1/3%.
As for ANY “compromise” on OUR 2nd Amendment Rights, like the Jews say after the Holocaust “Never Again”! I don’t want to hear anything from anyone on our side that doesn’t have to do with EXPANDING our rights.
Before we go on about compromise, I’d like the pro-2A crowd to explore the following. The Second Amendment has been confirmed to be an individual right, and it has been incorporated against the states. Given that,
1 – how do arbitrary bans (e.g., magazine limits, bans of gun appearance and features) pass strict scrutiny?
2 – how do subjective decisions, based on unstated arbitrary criteria, to grant or deny concealed carry licenses comply with equal protection?
how is it that extreme variation in states interpretation of the constitutionality of gun laws comply with equal protection? There is no other enumerated Constitutional right for which a common exercise in one state is a felony in the next state over. But a VA CCW’er commits a felony by merely crossing the Potomac river into Marylandistan.
Seems to me there is a lot of low hanging fruit to pick.
“how do arbitrary bans (e.g., magazine limits, bans of gun appearance and features) pass strict scrutiny?”
By not applying strict scrutiny and exercising intellectual dishonesty? Cuz that’s what the lower courts have been doing.
I’ll start. Repeal NFA, Repeal GCA, constitutional carry (that means no licensing of any kind) and put in place a requirement of a minimum 10 year penalty for any legislator who attempts to introduce or vote for any illegal infringement. (This implies that states and municipalities would be required to repeal all their gun control as well). And in return, here is my offer to gun control types. Congress would establish a fund (yes, paid for by my taxes) of $10-million a year to create an advertising program recommending that people get training in gun safety. In addition.