You Want to Compromise on Gun Control? OK, Let’s Compromise

Partnership and business deal. Successful deal handshake. Handshake approving sign. Agreement compromise arrangement. Shaking hands close up. Handshake friendly gesture. Handshake gesture concept

Reader Alan Smithee writes . . .

I keep hearing the word “compromise” used by politicians and anti-gun activists seeking to further restrict citizens’ access to firearms. Or even by those who want to take away guns, from law-abiding gun owners.

“Compromise” is defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as “an agreement or settlement of a dispute that is reached by each side making concessions.”

Two proposals by the anti-gun set, the so-called “red flag” laws and universal background checks, are under consideration in Congress and many state legislatures. Those with a firm belief in the Second Amendment are naturally dubious of those pushing these measures.

For generations, we’ve experienced “compromise” after “compromise,” yet in reality, all we’ve gotten is the perpetual erosion of our right to keep and bear arms. All concession by us, no compromise by them.

In the spirit of “compromise,” if taken at word’s worth, let’s enter the Land of Make Believe, and pretend the anti-gun crowd is actually amenable to compromise toward achieving these two goals. Here are a few compromises they could make which would actually benefit gun owners.

‘Red Flag’ Laws

red flag rights due process

Bigstock

While nobody wants to see firearms in the possession of those who may harm themselves or others, the proposed “red flag” legislation, if passed, would be a violation of both the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, at the very least. Not to mention, the Second Amendment.

In the spirit of compromise, however, I would propose that those who file a “red flag” report against someone must provide indisputable evidence of their claim in court within 72 hours of its filing. No proof? The guns remain with their owner.

Furthermore, those who are found to have purposely and fraudulently reported someone must serve a minimum of three years in prison, be subject to a civil lawsuit by the accused, and are themselves henceforth banned from firearm ownership for life. This is the typical federal penalty for a felon convicted of firearms possession. If someone is serious about having guns removed from another person’s possession, then he or she should bear the penalty if that charge is unfounded.

Universal Background Checks

Form 4473 and GLOCK (courtesy fbi.gov)

courtesy fbi.gov

While the argument can be easily made that a universal background check violates the Second Amendment, for the sake of discussion, let’s presume it becomes federal law. One painless compromise could be made by the anti-gun crowd in regards to this measure:

If two private citizens agree to the sale of a gun and both undergo and pass the check, the record of those who buy and sell is immediately and permanently expunged from any federal, state or municipal database. Having been conducted legally, there is no reason for any government entity to maintain a record of this transaction from that point forward.

Maintaining a record of this transaction would be a blatant violation of the the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986, which prohibits the federal government from establishing a registry of gun owners and their guns.

In addition, those possessing a concealed carry license — which is already subject to a federal background check — will not be subjected to a universal background check when selling or buying a gun from another licensee. Law-abiding gun owners should be free to conduct transactions with other law-abiding gun owners without interference if they have already undergone training and licensing.

As well, it would save time and resources for law enforcement to go after actual criminals. Pretty simple, really.

One more idea: all federal form 4473s, i.e. the firearms transaction record, must be destroyed by federal firearms licensed dealers after five years, versus the current 20-year rule. The rule forcing FFLs to retain records for 20 years is in itself a type of de facto gun registry. Five years (or less) of mandatory record keeping should suffice for the purposes of criminal investigation by law enforcement.

But wait, there’s more!

I would consider the compromises listed above only the beginning of the discussion. If the anti-gun set is so determined to make these ideas law, I am equally determined, or more so, to see more pro-Second Amendment legislation enacted.

Call me Veruca Salt, but as a gun owner, I want more and I want it NOW!

Concealed Carry

open carry i vote gun in holster

(AP Photo/Eric Gay, File)

All concealed carry licenses, no matter which state has issued them, will be respected by all 50 U.S. states and territories. The Bill of Rights applies to the citizens of all 50 states, yes?

Furthermore, concealed carry will be made legal in public libraries, public schools, colleges, universities, and other taxpayer-funded institutions, as well as other places open freely to the public. The only exceptions would be courts, jails and police stations.

It isn’t licensed concealed carriers who pose a criminal threat to the public. A crime being committed with a firearm is perpetrated virtually 100 percent of the time by someone who is, by definition, already a criminal, or otherwise prohibited by law from possessing a gun. “Gun-free” zones are never gun-free, and in fact, are places less safe than where firearms are allowed.

I’m not finished yet.

As the right to keep and bear arms is a civil right, no state or municipality will charge a fee for issuance of a concealed carry license, nor deny a concealed carry license to anyone who is A) a non-felon, B) 21 years of age, and C) has successfully completed 8 to 12 hours of safety training conducted by a licensed instructor.

To take it a step further, these licenses will no longer be subject to renewal as long as the licensee has not committed any felonies. Much the like the poll tax was used in the 1800s to prevent freed black slaves and poor whites from voting, the ability of a citizen to exercise his or her constitutional right to keep and bear arms should not be subject to a government fee. And 8 to 12 hours of safety training isn’t an onerous burden on the gun owner. Additional training would be recommended, obviously, but not required.

Thankfully, many states have already established “constitutional carry,” wherein law-abiding citizens may carry their weapons legally, without licensure. For those who believe not only the words, but the intent, of the Second Amendment, this ideally would be the law of all 50 United States.

Ayy Tee Eff

pistol suppressor silencer

Jeremy S. for TTAG

All ATF rules regarding gun accessories will be abolished. This includes “bump stocks,” forward grips, pistol grips, and rapid-fire triggers. Furthermore, the use and ownership of suppressors will no longer be subject to ATF approval and no longer require a $200 tax stamp.

The use of any of these accessories on a gun do not constitute any additional danger to anyone. In fact, a suppressor acts as a muffler, helping to prevent hearing loss. It is not a “silencer” as Hollywood and the media have portrayed in countless films and television shows.

All ATF rules regarding the minimum lengths of guns will be abolished. The National Firearms Act of 1934 (yes NINETEEN THIRTY FOUR) made fully automatic firearms illegal, unless the would-be owner paid a $200 tax stamp. It also restricted the possession of so-called “sawed-off” shotguns.

This legislation was passed in response to violence being committed by criminal gangs during the Prohibition era. Remarkably, Prohibition was repealed in 1933, yet at that time Congress determined to crack down on gang violence despite the fact the primary reason for this violence was due to Prohibition.

The NFA needs to go away. That this law is still in effect is both antiquated and preposterous, as criminals aren’t apt to shell out $200 and undergo a background check to obtain these weapons. They do as they please despite the law. Because, well, “criminals.”

As the NFA is abolished, there should be no further legislative measures, by either the federal or state governments, to enact a so-called “Assault Weapons” ban against any semi-automatic guns, or otherwise. The passage of such, akin to the 1994 “assault weapons” ban, is undeniably at odds with both the spirit and the letter of the Second Amendment.

Semi-automatic guns have been in common use by Americans for more than 100 years. Just because a gun looks scary to someone is not a valid reason to violate the Bill of Rights.

Handgun, rifle and shotgun ownership, as well as sales of ammunition, will be legal for all law-abiding citizens who attain the age of 18. Old enough to vote? Old enough to serve in the armed forces? You’re old enough to be a firearms owner. Congratulations!

high large capacity magazines

Bigstock

There should be no restrictions on the sale or possession of magazines, regardless of capacity. “High capacity” magazines have become a bogeyman for the anti-gun crowd. The problem is the definition of “high capacity.” Is 10 enough? Is 11 too much? For some vehement anti-gun folk, three rounds is too much.

A .22 long rifle Henry lever action rifle can hold 15 rounds of ammunition in its tube magazine, but because it’s not detachable and because it looks like a classic western rifle, it doesn’t meet the definition of scary much less something “tactical” such as, say, a Keltec CP33 handgun which comes standard with 33-round magazine. Or a GLOCK 19, with a standard capacity 15-round magazine. The examples go on and on.

Do you want “red flag” laws? Universal background checks? I believe what I have proposed are good starting points for a discussion.

Compromise is about each side making concessions, right? If these measures become law without concessions by the other side, then millions upon millions of law-abiding gun owners will become gun “outlaws” – a bad consequence for America and slap in the face to the Founding Fathers who used their “weapons of war” to free the 13 colonies from tyrannical British rule.

comments

  1. avatar Dennis says:

    Leftist gun grabbers spell compromise a little differently than we do, it’s SPELLED S-U-R-R-E-N-D-E-R!

    1. avatar BusyBeef says:

      Remember when we had a Republican House, Republican Senate, and Republican President yet they couldn’t get the Hearing Protection Act or Concealed Carry Reciprocity passed?

      1. avatar LampOfDiogenes says:

        Oh, yeah, I remember – and that is why I am NOT a Republican – the difference between the two parties is that one of them advocates surrendering to socialism immediately; the other proposes to do it in stages, over a longer period of time. Both of them can osculate the tip of my manhood.

    2. avatar California Richard says:

      No…. they spelled “compromise” correctly. They just use the verb meaning of “compromise” rather than the noun meaning defined by the writer at the top of the article:

      compromise

      [ˈkämprəˌmīz]

      NOUN

      an agreement or a settlement of a dispute that is reached by each side making concessions.

      “an ability to listen to two sides in a dispute, and devise a compromise acceptable to both” · 

      synonyms: agreement · 

      VERB

      accept standards that are lower than is desirable.

      “Gun control compromises the 2nd ammendment.”

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        Very nice!

    3. avatar Huntmaster says:

      Leftists see compromise as we know we can’t get everything we want this year. We’ll compromise and settle for some of it. Then they come around next year for some more. And the next year and the next. Eventually we get everything we want. They play the long game. Eventually you look around and say what happened?

    4. avatar toomanyhobbies says:

      There can be no compromise where rights are involved….

    5. avatar anonymous says:

      “Compromise” is defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as “an agreement or settlement of a dispute that is reached by each side making concessions.”

      No compromise. No concessions.

      Compromise to the left is continual movement in their direction across time. No thanks. If their ideas had any merit, it would be considered. However, they have none and their ideas are garbage already tried elsewhere in Stalin’s Russia, Mao’s China, and elsewhere. They are not even “progressive.” They are regressive garbage.

  2. avatar Ruthless_Objectivity says:

    A true compromise. I’d vote for it.

  3. avatar jwm says:

    Compromise? We get national constitutional carry. No fees. No records. No checks.

    In return we give up any claims on NBC weapons. Deal?

    1. avatar Eric in Oregon says:

      Damn, I thought I was a 2A absolutist but I’d take that compromise.

      1. avatar Chris T in KY says:

        Flamethrowers are fall under the NBC category. Also smoke bombs. I’m not willing to give them up. The “gun community” has already given up on Machine Guns. Except for the ownership by rich people.
        Flamethrowers of many different types, have been used commercially for decades now. Please do the research to educate yourselves. A flamethrower is not a weapon. Just as a machete is not a weapon. It’s a tool used to harvest crops.

        1. avatar Eric in Oregon says:

          Flamethrower an NBC? I think not.

        2. avatar Chris T in KY says:

          To Eric in Oregon
          I’m sure you will also be surprised that napalm. Is considered a chemical weapon. Just as flamethrowers are considered chemical weapons. NBC. Nuclear Biological and Chemical.
          Smoke bombs are also considered chemical weapons.

          Btw
          When the left-wing protesters throw feces or urine on to people they don’t like that’s called a biological weapon. And I hope that is outlawed and they go to jail.

        3. avatar arc says:

          Technically all weapons are chemical weapons and if you wanted to take it a step further, TMK, chemical properties of atoms are largely determined by their outer shell electrons… and you can take break it down even further than that.

        4. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Nah, I got a Cold Steel tanto which is not a chemical weapon.

        5. avatar merlin grayman says:

          anyone can buy a flamethrower.

      2. avatar LampOfDiogenes says:

        I keep making this point, over and over, but my fellow 2A supporters seem to miss the essence.

        THAT. HORSE. LEFT. THE. BARN. AT. LEAST. 100. YEARS. AGO.

        Incendiaries are (not always, but generally) illegal under current law. As are poison gases, poisons, or biological weapons.

        Unfortunately, ‘field expedient’ versions of ALL of the above can be made at home, by anyone with the brains to pour p*** out of a boot, with materials readily available at common commercial outlets (Home Depot, Walmart, Lowe’s, K-Mart, your local Ace Hardware, your local garden center, or your local supermarket).

        True, while functional plans to build a nuclear fission device have been available online for around 50 years, the hurdle has always been obtaining sufficient fissionable material – but that, too, is doable by someone with sufficient knowledge/financial resources/contacts. But, frankly, a nuke is kind of a binary weapon – kill everyone, or kill no one. As Eric Swallowswell should have known, a nuke is a nearly useless weapon against insurgents – unless you are happy to wholesale kill thousands or millions of innocent citizens.

        WHY ARE WE EVEN HAVING THIS DISCUSSION???????? Unless y’all can retroactively control human knowledge and the human brain? You are engaging in intellectual onanism, and boring the crap out of me, in the meantime. For my own part? Ban whatever you want – I can MAKE what I need, any time I want, up to nukes, with crap I can buy in my own neighborhood. OOPS. Sucks to be you, dunnit???

        Please, at least make an EFFORT not to be transparently stupid.

    2. avatar Scott C. says:

      One more compromise: abolish the ATF, NFA and Hughes amendment we’ll give up nukes.

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        I will surrender my right to own a battleship in return. Which also shows the correct sequence, you disband first, then I will surrender my rights. Not the reverse.

  4. avatar Dan W says:

    “In fact, a suppressor acts as a muffler, helping to prevent hearing loss. It is not a “silencer” as Hollywood and the media have portrayed in countless films and television shows.”

    I’ve always found this argument to be very disingenuous. Would you be for banning suppressors if they were quieter?

    1. avatar Ragnar says:

      The “media” perpetuates fear of “silencers” by representing them as being so quiet, that you will never hear the shooter firing. This is blatantly false, as anyone that has ever fired a suppressed firearm can attest. Suppressors reduce the dB of the shot, but even as reported in the Virginia Beach shooting incident, witnesses reported hearing gun shots from the suppressed pistol. Some mistook the shooting as a nail gun, but if you have ever been near a construction project, nail guns are loud.

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “The “media” perpetuates fear of “silencers” by representing them as being so quiet, that you will never hear the shooter firing. ”

        It’s not just media. Plenty of cops believe and foster the same idea.

        Always wondered why anyone thinks that hearing a gunshot is somehow useful in solving a crime. Has any evidence been presented that indicates dozens of reports of gunshots were showered on police, giving the first clue, and eventually leading to a perp who was convicted? Do people (anyone) really believe gunshot are not just ignored by the neighborhood? Having lived in a developing sub-division, I can attest that the sharp noises were indistinguishable from gunshots? Even when the last house was under construction, from indoors, I could not tell if someone was shooting targets in the backyard, or someone in their garage was making a board of some sort.

        One of my favorite “special effects” from movies is when a revolver has a silencer attached, and the sound of gunfire is “pppffffftttttt”. Or when some thriller writer describes the amazing quality of suppressors that only one to hear the cycling of the bolt/slide.

    2. avatar Ragnar says:

      Additionally:

      Banning them if they were quieter? That’s a disingenuous question. The argument isn’t about the decibel reduction, it’s about the false pretense from the media and the fact that suppressors do not present a danger to anyone.

      1. avatar Dan W says:

        Would you think they should be banned if they were Hollywood quiet? If not, pointing out how they aren’t doesn’t make any sense.

        1. avatar Ragnar says:

          Simple question, simple answer: No.

          The elaboration on the media lies was purely to illustrate the false narrative and fear mongering.

        2. avatar LampOfDiogenes says:

          While I disapprove of the whole “anti-suppressor” movement (if our military routinely issues, AND IT DOES, hearing protection and sound suppression devices to line troops, why the hell am I not allowed to have them?? I agree that the argument that “they don’t really SILENCE weapons” is a loser – what if some bright guy invented a super-efficient suppressor that effectively killed the sound altogether? Would you be OK with banning that?? I wouldn’t.

          So, while I dislike the implications, I agree with your point. I would otherwise prefer the argument that “If grunts in the military need suppressors, why shouldn’t they be available to civilians?”, but . . . as a professor of mine once said, “Don’t give them any ideas; they can make up enough stupid s*** on their own!”

  5. avatar Cruzo1981 says:

    Funny that no pro 2A politicians have the gall to stand up for true compromise like this! Someone in politics who comes out and proposes this would never be voted out…

    1. avatar Philthegardner says:

      It’s been bandied here before… Prosecute pols who propose laws that violate civil rights. You want to propose a racist law? Jail time. You want to restrict free speech? Jail time. You want to infringe on 2a? Jail time.
      In fact make politicians liable for every stupid thing they want to inflict on the people. That will weed out the majority of criminals masquerading as politicians in the country.

      1. avatar strych9 says:

        Those proposals require a amendment to the Constituion.

        See Article 1, Section 6.

    2. avatar Miner49er says:

      “Four moderate Democrats joined Republicans in Monday’s committee vote, rejecting legislation that would have prohibited the sale of certain semiautomatic firearms, including popular AR-15 style rifles, and banned the possession of magazines that hold more than 12 rounds.”

      1. avatar jwm says:

        Those ‘moderate’ dems have lost the battle to restore sanity to the democratic party. After Trump wins in Nov. the dems will be a fractured party at least for a generation. You guys had a chance to police your own and failed.

        And Trump will continue with the judges.

        1. avatar LarryinTX says:

          I do not believe RBG can make it to Jan 2025. And hopefully Trump can pull off a Bloomberg and continue to 2029.

  6. avatar Dan W says:

    Compromise if for those arguing in good faith, something our enemies do not do.

    1. avatar Phil Wilson says:

      ^^^^^This

      For example:

      “If two private citizens agree to the sale of a gun and both undergo and pass the check, the record of those who buy and sell is immediately and permanently expunged from any federal, state or municipal database.”

      Government agencies cannot be trusted to obey the law, period. This is especially true in any area controlled be Proggies.

  7. avatar MyName says:

    I have an idea for a compromise. Repeal all the gun laws and make it illegal to use a gun to harm someone who isn’t harming you first.

    1. avatar Phil LA says:

      Seems logical to me.

    2. Repeal all the gun laws and make it illegal to use a gun to harm someone who isn’t harming you first.

      That is itself a gun law. How about simply make it illegal to harm someone who isn’t harming you first.

      1. avatar MyName says:

        Works for me.

      2. avatar LarryinTX says:

        Dude! Way Radical!!

  8. avatar Prndll says:

    The desire of the other side is to remove the 2nd Amendment and do away with guns for any and all civilians.

    Where is there any room for compromise?

    1. avatar Big Bill says:

      sat·ire
      /ˈsaˌtī(ə)r/
      noun

      the use of humor, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize people’s stupidity or vices, particularly in the context of contemporary politics and other topical issues.

  9. avatar Sam I Am says:

    To the anti-liberty club, “compromise” is not described in a dictionary. “Compromise” means, heads they win, tails they win, and they will choose the coin to be flipped.

    1. avatar Eric in Oregon says:

      Not only choose the coin, but flip it, hide it in their fist, fiddle with it while it’s in their palm, and then tell you they won.

      https://www.dailymail.co.uk/video/bbc/video-2103200/Video-delegate-Iowa-caucus-decided-coin-toss.html

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “Not only choose the coin, but flip it, hide it in their fist, fiddle with it while it’s in their palm, and then tell you they won.”

        Indeed.

  10. avatar Ark says:

    We “compromised” with Brady, and now that “compromise” is a dangerous and deadly “loophole” that must be closed.

    The word of a grabber is worthless.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      So repeal Brady, that’ll fix it!

  11. avatar Hannibal and the Elephants says:

    “and C) has successfully completed 8 to 12 hours of safety training conducted by a licensed instructor.”
    Ah! but the dammmned poll tax cannot be put to death, can it?

    1. avatar Hannibal and the Elephants says:

      Well, unless a background check (felons are disenfranchised in most places) and 8-12 hours of truly non partisan civics and Constitutional Law training is required for a voter card.

    2. avatar vvactor says:

      and make those 8-12 hours of education mandatory as part of graduating from an accredited high school. bring firearms education back into the education system

      1. avatar Toni Smith says:

        if brought into the school system have it about the same number of hours as any other subject. IHMO it is just as important as maths and english. What you suggest makes it like a small unimportant part of Physical Ed.
        I must say though if it were up to me schools would not be funded federally or even at the state level but at the local level and parents getting to decide what is included in the curriculum rather than know it all’s who think they know better then everyone else

    3. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      While I disagree with pretty much all (if not all) of the author’s proposed “compromises”, I had to comment about the training pre-requisite.

      Not only does the cost of 8 to 12 hours of “safety” training put firearm ownership and possession out of reach of many people, that much safety training is not even necessary in the first place to instill safe firearm storage, possession, handling, and operation. And how about the time allotment of 8 to 12 hours which requires some people to miss work or family care (e.g. child or elderly parent care) — that alone is a huge burden for some.

      On top of that, I cannot see how true safety training can take more than one hour, including actual hands-on practice to cement that training through “muscle memory” (e.g. learning by actually doing as opposed to learning only through seeing or hearing).

      To prove my point, we can cover the basics in about 60 seconds and one paragraph. True firearm safety training consists of the following:
      (1) The “Four Rules”.
      (2) Verify that firearms are unloaded in both magazine and chamber before
      firearm activities such as cleaning, maintenance, training, dry-fire practice, etc.
      (3) Teach people to “index” their trigger finger alongside the firearm frame even
      when deploying their firearm in a high-stress situation.
      (4) Teach people to keep their handguns in a properly fitting and secure holster
      which covers the trigger guard when they are “carrying” their handgun (either
      on-body or off-body in a purse or satchel as just two examples).
      (5) Teach people to store their firearms and ammunition in a safe manner
      when they are not carrying them on their person.
      (6) Review when a person is legally justified to used deadly force. (That will
      take at most 10 minutes.)

      That’s it. That does not take 8 to 12 hours.

      1. avatar Gordon in MO says:

        It is worth while for anyone/everyone to take a class on the laws relative to using a firearm. When you can, when you cannot.

        Most people don’t know the law and “ignorance is no excuse” in a court room.

        1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

          Gordon in MO,

          That depends on exactly what you mean. Many sources claim that there are over 20,000 firearm laws on the books in the United States. A person could spend two years of full-time studying to try and review and understand all that.

          A simple review of Common Law should be all that is necessary and takes all of 60 seconds. And that 60 second review is:
          (1) Do not threaten to offensively harm anyone.
          (2) Do not offensively harm anyone.
          Note that threatening to offensively harm someone could be verbal (either spoken or written) or physical (such as displaying a knife, bludgeon, firearm, etc. in a threatening manner).

          Everything else that is heaped upon us with respect to firearm laws is unnecessary and violates our inalienable rights. Unfortunately, governments (all three branches) have largely operated in violation of those two simple facts for the last 140 years.

        2. avatar Craig says:

          Worthwhile is one thing. Govt made mandatory is unacceptable.

          “ignorance of the law is no excuse” Unless you are a cop, at which time it’s OK and you get a pass, while getting overtime to show up in court.

        3. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Gordon, in TX it is near impossible to keep up with changes in “gun laws” from year to year, and most states are worse. Still, you are correct, every American should study up on gun laws, since only 27 words apply.

      2. avatar LampOfDiogenes says:

        Dear common_unsense,

        Well, I consider myself somewhat of a 2A absolutist, and I am NOT in favor of having the gummint prescribe required firearms training or (*shudder*) certify and license gun owners or trainers – after all, the gummint approves and licenses drivers, and you NEVER encounter someone on the road and think to yourself, “How in hell did THAT idiot get a license?”. Amirite???

        Nevertheless, in substance, you comment that “On top of that, I cannot see how true safety training can take more than one hour, including actual hands-on practice to cement that training through “muscle memory” (e.g. learning by actually doing as opposed to learning only through seeing or hearing).

        To prove my point, we can cover the basics in about 60 seconds and one paragraph.”

        That is one of the seriously stupidest comments I have heard on the entire issue of gun control, and I INCLUDE comments by folks like Mini Mike and Shannon Watts and Daniel DeLeon. If you think one hour of training, and 60 seconds of the ‘basics’ of gun safety are enough?? PLEASE don’t come shoot at my range. You are a moron.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “If you think one hour of training, and 60 seconds of the ‘basics’ of gun safety are enough?? PLEASE don’t come shoot at my range. You are a moron.”

          Specifically, which constitutionally protected human, natural, civil right requires any training in order to exercise? Since 2A prescribes, or does not require, specific training for the militia. And the unorganized militia is still militia. Why is firearm training of any type necessary at all?

          It is reported that there are ~2.5 million defensive gun uses every year. It is silly to believe that all those were committed by trained gun owners (i.e. concealed carry permitted).

          2A does not require, nor does any other statement in the base constitution require, that a person’s natural, human and civil right to self-defense is predicated on being able to safely handle a firearm at home, or in public.

        2. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Sam, USAF trained me to shoot the .38 Spl in one hour, including qualification. The M16 took an afternoon, including full auto fire, qualification, and cleaning. Guns just are not that challenging.

        3. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Sam, USAF trained me to shoot the .38 Spl in one hour, including qualification. The M16 took an afternoon, including full auto fire, qualification, and cleaning.”

          Same here. Just not quite sure what you are trying to convey, here.

          (BTW, that USAF training was free to the trainees, regardless of rank or financial advantage).

      3. avatar Troubled Soul says:

        Exactly. Safety can be taught in very limited time.
        WA state has never had mandatory training to get your CPL
        WA does not have a higher rate of NDs or accidental deaths than any other state.
        WA is trying to pass a law right now to make training mandatory
        I and many others have spent a fair amount of time contacting our reps to keep from making it harder for law abiding citizens to get their “Gov Permission Slip” for a right they shouldn’t have to ask permission for.
        So excuse me for saying “Piss Off”
        if you want to give away your rights, please go to Venezuela and enjoy

  12. avatar Blkojo says:

    No barrel length minimums.

  13. avatar possum and the Coons of Doom says:

    Compromise This, it’s BATFE, so give me a store where I can buy booze smokes gunms and blombs

    1. avatar LazrBeam says:

      As displayed on my T-Shirt: Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms should be a convenience store NOT a government agency.

  14. avatar Rev. Philip E. Evans says:

    It sounds interesting… but it will never work! “Compromise” is an unknown word in communism and socialism! Even if somehow it actually did happen exactly as proposed, it would be quickly violated!

    To the “Left”, “Rights” are something that those in control allow you to have and can be taken away at any time! In reality, to the “left”, there is no such thing as “Rights”, only “Privilege”, and that can be removed on a whim!!

    This country was founded upon the principle of “individual” rights that we have by Divine authority. Stand up for your rights! God Bless America!

    1. avatar Illinois_Minion says:

      The the “Lefts”, the “Rights” are wrong.

      FIFY

      PS: Why am I compromising on my freedoms for their mental (dis)comfort?

    2. avatar Miner49er says:

      “Four moderate Democrats joined Republicans in Monday’s committee vote, rejecting legislation that would have prohibited the sale of certain semiautomatic firearms, including popular AR-15 style rifles, and banned the possession of magazines that hold more than 12 rounds.”

      1. avatar jwm says:

        See my above comment to you.

        1. avatar Miner49er says:

          You see 4 Democrats voting against gun control as failure.

          I see 4 Democrats voting against gun control as progress.

        2. avatar jwm says:

          Bullshit. You and your alter ego vlad have been riding gun control hard. You want the freedoms removed from us. But now you realize that the country has changed. Trump will get a second term and he will change the federal judges to conservative.

  15. avatar Rusty Nales says:

    I would support all of your proposals here except for the 8 to 12 hour mandatory training. A lot of us have been gun responsible owners since we were children so this would seem excessive & arbitrary. How about 8 to 12 hour mandatory training but with a written & hands-on Proficiency Test carve out for us old timers?
    Otherwise, great article & well thought out. It seems that lots of people have forgotten that the Bill of Rights IS the Law in ALL 50 States!

  16. avatar GS650G says:

    I’d like to have an F16, a cruise missile, Bradley fighting vehicle, and an apache helicopter because they are cool.

    How’s that for compromise?

    1. Sounds good. I can’t afford any of those, but I think I could scrape up enough to guy a grenade launcher and grenades. Maybe even an RPG. And a few claymore mines to deploy if TSHTF. And no, I’m not being facetious or sarcastic.

      1. avatar possum and the Coons of Doom says:

        12 gauge shotgunm, 12 gauge shots shell, remove lead and reduce powder charge by half, stick long enough to reach base of wad, end of stick pipe blomb,place butt of shotgunm on ground, light fuse, pull trigger.. hillbilly grenade launcher

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “…hillbilly grenade launcher”

          I do believe ghost grenade launchers are highly illegal.

      2. avatar guy says:

        A Milkor mgl a six shot grenade launcher that’s my fantasy gun.

    2. avatar LazrBeam says:

      Throw in an Ohio class boomer as well and I’d be good.

      1. avatar Tired of the bs says:

        Your guns need a bigger pool.

        1. avatar Tired of the bs says:

          guna

  17. avatar Chris T in KY says:

    Why do I need to compromise with people who are simply afraid? People who go out of their way to be uneducated about the Second Amendment. It’s really amazing how the stupid are allowed to set policy.

    1. avatar LazrBeam says:

      Chris, it’s not that they are uneducated. Rather, they have been indoctrinated by our public educational system and college level institutions. When I went through grammar school, high school, and college the educators were by and large freedom loving patriots. I’m not sure how it went to hell in a hand basket but it seems it was a cooly calculated progression.

      1. avatar Gordon in MO says:

        Quote: “Chris, it’s not that they are uneducated. Rather, they have been indoctrinated by our public educational system and college level institutions.”

        I disagree with the first.

        Students today are not taught American History, they are taught to hate America. They are not taught the Constitution, they are lied to about the Constitution. They are not taught to think for themselves, they are told what to think.

        They are not educated. I do agree that they are indoctrinated.

        The next chance you get talk with a young person about government, the Constitution, socialism. You may (probably will ) get shocked by it.

  18. avatar Sick of leftist jerks says:

    One compromise I am willing to make: My state continuing to accept drivers licenses from places like New York, New Jersey, and California as long as they accept my states carry license. I would love to see drivers from those states get a ticket for driving without a valid license and push it hard with something like a $150 fine….is it harassment? Less than what they do to gun owners. I see no other way to push back against those places. Even if SCOTUS says strict scrutiny is the rule, places like New York City will still violate the rights of everyone possibly they can with the attitude of “what you gonna do about it?”

    1. avatar Phil LA says:

      That is an interesting idea. State A should no longer recognize any state licenses (drivers, boating, firearms/concealed, professional certificates, etc) from any state that does not recognize all State A licenses. The offending states would surely follow suit. Then it’s just a matter of who blinks first.

      1. avatar JR Pollock says:

        Since NY & CA and a few other states are now giving driver’s licenses to illegal aliens, the North American Driver’s License Compact should be dissolved, and the neighboring states can stop drivers with the offending plates to catch illegals.

  19. avatar former water walker says:

    Nothing good EVER comes from compromising…how about constitutional carry and NO training? If you trust a leftard you are insane. That goes for RIno’s too. Geez I don’t Drumph either. All that pie in the sky talk is BS😩

  20. avatar Will says:

    Gun control was NEVER about guns. We all know it’s about CONTROL… of people! So the Leftists and RINOs can go pound sand, screw ‘compromise’. Ain’t gonna give up squat anymore and we will take BACK everything surrendered for the last 100 years INCLUDING machine guns and ‘destructive devices’.

    And we’ll do it by force of arms, if need be, because it’s OUR RIGHT. Of course, the Left wants this to be a contest of arms anyway because they believe nobody anywhere is able to stand up to the US effing Gooberment!

    Excuse me while I laugh in Viet Cong, and my pals laugh in Taliban and IRA.

  21. avatar (D)evil says:

    The communist idea of compromise: I keep your money, you keep your life.

  22. avatar Stateisevil says:

    The weakness of the gun lobby in the US is manifest by the NFA and its absolute impenetrable armor. There is not even a rationale for the SBR/SBS regulations since Congress failed to ban handguns when they wanted to. Add the fact that AR and AK pistols are legal and it would almost be comical. It just is.

    A little education and one sees there is no rationale for the suppressor regulations either. It would have nearly zero effect on crime if they were on Amazon tomorrow.

    If there is one gun protected by the 2nd amendment it is the select fire M4. High popularity and easier access and they would be used more in crimes, particularly when some loser kid decided to kill his classmates. The overall effect on crime rates if they were freely available would probably not be noticeable. People kill themselves and others with, wait for it…… handguns! Because they’re handy.

    NFA proves that the gun lobby is really a paper tiger and shows why the controllers live urbanization and choking the gun CULTURE.

  23. avatar J says:

    Our state and federal representatives say they have compromised, but really have given our 2nd Amendment rights away over the last almost 100 yrs. We will never see them returned to us in full in any life time in the US at the state and federal level. The revolving criminal justice system is a joke in almost all states in the US with large cities. If, a criminal in Chicago, IL commits a crime they are released with little or no bail and do not do jail time for the crime the commit. We see it in the news all the time and TTAG has reported on this in articles on criminals just getting away with crimes, but they would put us away for life. We do not need to compromise on the 2nd Amendment with any laws. This has already been done in numerous states with hundreds of different firearms laws with state and federal representative stating this new law will help eliminate crime with no real effect on crime. The criminals committing the crimes in our states with large cities know they got a free ride. We need to enforce our laws period and criminals do not care what new law is passed on firearms. Democrats and their Socialist party members do believe they will in the next 50 to 100 years eliminate firearms from the US.

    https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/cities-let-weapons-drug-offenders-off-then-wonder-why-their-crime-rates-soar

  24. avatar Andrew Lias says:

    Here’s my opinion. Every bill for gun control should include 2 simple things:
    -10/20/30 for any crimes other than mere possession of a weapon.
    -No police carve outs. Period. You think 7 rounds is enough? Well the police can deal with that too tbh. Enjoy your wheel guns and 1911s.

    I think that this would spike gun control proposals virtually anywhere.

    In terms of this I’m not concerned about the implications of it one way or another; There’s way too many things that grabbers would never agree for this to even be remotely plausible.

    The lefts idea of “compromise” is much like Darth Vaders. “Hope I don’t alter the deal any further.”

  25. avatar UpInArms says:

    2A says “shall not be infringed.” Any compromise is an admission that these words don’t really mean what the say. Sorry, that leaves the door unlocked and a little bit open. Bad things will always try to come in. No deal.

    My definition of compromise: An agreement that makes everyone unhappy.

    1. avatar LazrBeam says:

      You win the interwebz today. Congrats!!

  26. avatar Loggs says:

    Lol at this article. Naive. They don’t want compromise or anything “sensible”.

    If you haven’t figured out yet that everything is just doublespeak to eventually obtain complete disarmament I don’t know what to say. It’s completely 100% obvious.

    1. avatar Lance says:

      Nah, I wouldn’t call it naive.

      Remember, our target is the uninformed, fence sitters, and the gun control lite folks. We need to convince these people that the anti gunners pushing these draconian gun laws are the uncompromising radicals. We need to change our approach.

      Of course, its obvious for us… but not the folks who are lukewarm on gun rights. If we are to regain our rights we must take small steps. The same small steps the anti-gunners took that brought us here.

  27. avatar Dan says:

    One of the commie lefts mottos is “What’s mine is MINE, what’s YOURS is negotiable”. There can be NO COMPROMISE with the left because they don’t believe in compromise. To them a compromise is just one more step along the road to getting what they want. And they have NO INTENTION of EVER giving up any concessions for ANYONE, for ANY REASON. The ONLY successful negotiations and compromises that we
    can ever achieve when dealing with the left involves rope and lamp posts….LOTS of rope and LOTS of lamp posts.

  28. avatar Nww says:

    I dont think its a sellers job or business to ask if the buyer has a concealed carry permit or run a background check. Nor should a buyer have to prove his innocence by submitting to a background check to buy a firearm. If we’re doing background checks on firearms why not also on ammunition, cell phones, personal/ham radios, automobiles, fireworks, alcohol, gas/diesel, knives, axes, hammers, machetes, crowbars, bolt cutters, etc.? Those could also be used to commit crimes or harm someone.

    While i dont have anything against training if you so choose why force people to take a class to exercise a civil right? Make safe firearms handling a part of our culture by teaching it in school or, heaven forbid, parents teach their own children. And if we’re requiring firearms classes what other rights will be suspended until you take a class? Do your other legal rights only apply if you have the proper legal training? I assume these classes will cost money. Thats a dangerous precedent to set in order to exercise your civil rights.

    I understand what the author is saying and i think what they are proposing would be better than the way things are now. I’m just throwing in my two cents.

  29. avatar Hannibal says:

    “All concealed carry licenses, no matter which state has issued them, will be respected by all 50 U.S. states and territories. The Bill of Rights applies to the citizens of all 50 states, yes?”

    Is it a right or a privilege? If the former, how can you license it? If the latter, how can you force every state to accept the determination of every other state?

    This is, of course, the problem with national reciprocity as a whole. I’m in favor of it but there’s definitely some issues with federalism involved.

    1. avatar Dan w says:

      The Constitution requires the states to accept licenses from other states. It’s the full faith and credit clause.

      1. avatar John Bryan says:

        Good. Put it in the USC if that’s what it takes to force our self-aggrandizing pols from trampling on the REST of the Constitution.

  30. avatar Stargazer says:

    Nah let’s just abolish Hughes and FOPA and all the other gun laws on the books. I’ll take my chances with the armed criminals who typically can’t shoot worth a damn anyway. SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED 😉

  31. avatar Randy Jones says:

    So when is Alan running for Congress or Senate and which state will he be from?

  32. avatar George WashingtonGl says:

    “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED”…… THAT MEANS IN ITSELF NO COMPROMISE…

    Why americans have ALLOWED their rights to be stripped away without the slightest peep of resistance is a complete mystery to me….

    1. avatar MLee says:

      I think it’s an endemic issue with society. The hard core take no prisoners FOAD type of people of yesteryear are old and dying off. Society has been raising politically correct girly men who don’t dare say anything that might offend. (This is a generalization of a bigger problem) Society is being PROGRAMMED from early days of grade school and continues on with the media. The sit back and do nothing attitude of being a compliant, obedient drone are overly prevalent. We as a society have gotten soft. Not all, but too many.
      I know this, our founding fathers would be disappointed.

      1. avatar Toni Smith says:

        yes sadly i have to agree and it pisses me off no end…

    2. avatar Someone says:

      Listen to gun grabbers and then ask yourself how many of us are willing to stand up against their accusations of racism, callousness, selfishness, not caring about dead children, about safety and crime reduction, lack of common sense and compensating for small genitalia.

  33. avatar Dan W says:

    Here is a compromise for you. We can split the debate right down the middle perfect 50/50. 100% complete and total ban on all firearms, mandatory death penalty for mere possession. This will only apply to Democrats. Then 100% free and unregulated weapons for everyone else.

    They get what they want, we get what we want. Seems fair.

    1. avatar Toni Smith says:

      lol i like that compromise

  34. avatar GunnyGene says:

    Nobody is going to actually “compromise” on this issue, or the details of it. It’s pointless to even talk about it. We either have the means of defense and offense or we don’t. Getting down in the weeds arguing about what kind of means, where they can and can’t be used, and so on is a complete waste of time, and ultimately not productive.

  35. avatar RedFlagRising says:

    Those clinging bitterly will be left crumpled in the corner in a pool of their own fluids.

    Its called a “compromising position.”

    President Bernie will put all the bitter clingers into a compromising position.

    1. avatar jwm says:

      Shit. Full of. You are.

      1. avatar James Campbell says:

        SO full. It spills. Daily. On TTAG.

  36. avatar 2aguy says:

    Left wing compromise…” Give us the guns we want to ban now, or we will ban all of them.” Then, ” give us the next set of guns we want to ban now, or we will ban all of them.” Repeat until all guns are banned………

  37. avatar James Campbell says:

    The entire article is based on a flawed premise.
    Words do not have “static” definitions to those pushing for more restrictive gun legislations.
    For them words are forever evolving, with no clear definitions at ANY moment.
    Example? Ask an anti 2nd A lawmaker to define THEIR term, “assault rifle”. The response will not be a clear definition, and they will end the discussion stating the term means WHATEVER the F they want it to mean.
    But don’t worry, LEOs and prosecutors will use “discretion” in the enforcement of these “undefined” laws.

  38. avatar A. Daniels says:

    The article’s author identifies as “Alan Smithee,” which is an official pseudonym that film directors use when a film’s final result is so bad that they don’t want their real names associated with it.

  39. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

    Their is No compromising with unAmerican Leftards.

  40. avatar El Duderino says:

    Wasting your time. They want all guns out of civilian hands. Their strategy of pandering to tragedy and creating lawlessness and crime is working. They neither need to nor want to work hand in hand with the “other side” i.e. us. We are rushing toward a confrontation and everyone who is intellectually honest knows it.

    Sorry you won’t get the hours back it took to write this article.

  41. avatar Bobbie Panelli says:

    Consider, too, that $200 in 1934 is like $3900 today, given inflation. So, that $200 tax was a clear attempt at ensuring that only the elite would have gun rights, while ordinary citizens were priced out.

  42. avatar StLPro2A says:

    “In matters of style, swim with the current. In matters of principle, stand like a rock.” Thomas Jefferson, I believe.

  43. avatar JohnH says:

    The Hughes Amendment was a poison pill meant to dissuade a Republican majority from passing the Firearm Owners Protection Act. We need a coupe of pro 2A representatives to add compromise amendments to every anti gun bill in the house

  44. avatar DENNIS HANNICK says:

    The gun prohibitionists always suggest and then demand, compromise. It sounds so — fair and equitable. But the only ones who are expected to compromise are the gun owners. We are expected to compromise our rights, freedom and safety so that the uncompromising anti-gunners can “feel” safer. Have you ever heard of them compromising and repealing a bad gun law because it didn’t work? All 20,000+ gun laws are working so well that we need more? It is not compromise, it is capitulation that they are demanding.

  45. avatar William Colligan says:

    I would like to add one more, which may upset the social just warriors. over 80% of gun homicides in this country are gang related. I propose we go after gangs with a fever and any gang member who uses a gun in the commission of a crime, or possesses one illegally receive enhanced mandatory incarceration penalties. Unfortunately overwhelmingly gang membership is Hispanic/latino and black and this would result in a disproportionate incarceration of minorities. But then again, it is the reason these same politicians are coming after law abiding citizens.

  46. avatar Chief C says:

    There hasn’t been a gun control law passed in the last 50 years that has actually kept a criminal or a terrorist from obtaining a gun. Note no recommended laws address mandatory sentencing for violent gun criminals. In fact, blue states are releasing violent criminals, eliminating death penalties, eliminating life without parole and decriminalizing crimes. The goal of the left wing liberal progressive socialist America hating democrats is to disarm the American people because if they have guns the left cannot accomplish their agenda of a democrat controlled government socialist Mecca. Keep in mind that we banned Heroin and Cocaine in the 1920s so nobody could get it. How has that worked out?

  47. avatar Sum Dood says:

    “C) has successfully completed 8 to 12 hours of safety training conducted by a licensed instructor.”

    You need to read this: https://larrycorreia.wordpress.com/2008/05/20/mandatory-training-for-ccw/

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