Gun Compromises.

One I think might be a reasonable "pro-gun" offer would be expanding concealed carry. Perhaps we could have a federal level CC permit. It would be harder to get than a state level permit and might have more hoops to jump through (more rules and checks and cost) but it would be a shall issue (after more extensive BGC).

Fortunately, we have states the will NEVER compromise. Texas is one of them along with a few others that are floating bills that would make the enforcement of any new federal gun laws illegal subject to imprisonment. Effectively negating the laws.

conservatives used to be for law and order and the military and the police and flags. now they are against gov in general and in principle, against police, against military. this, in addition to those that they were traditionally against. it is like political suicide.

I would accept a reduction of magazine capacity to 20 rounds, if silencers were removed from being NFA and no longer requiring a tax stamp. However, I also recognize that should one use a silencer in commission of a crime, that they should receive a stiffer penalty were this to happen.

Silencers would be useful in home defense, as they would remove/reduce the need for hearing protection in a confined space. Which would be really handy, should a 2AM intruder need to be dealt with.

what if the SCOTUS rules those new laws, such as the one considered by Texas, unconstitutional?

conservatives used to be for law and order and the military and the police and flags. now they are against gov in general and in principle, against police, against military. this, in addition to those that they were traditionally against. it is like political suicide.

sigh.

Well then, I guess we'd have a good 'ole Mexican stand off huh? I'd sign on to fight with TX over this. Just because the SC rules something "unconstitutional" (what a joke) does not mean that the law is, in fact, unconstitutional. Of recent note the Heller decision that was voted against by all the party hacks. It should have been 9 to 0. 5 to 4 tells me something is rotten in Denmark.

So when the SCOTUS and the Texas legislators disagree on the constitutionality of a law, you go with the Texas legislators. Good to know.

What about the Texas National Guard? Whom do you think they should consider their commander in chief, the gov of Texas or the President of the United States?

Yes, and should it come down to it, the Governor of TX.

Have you looked at the actual data on firearms? Violent crime has been decreasing. Accidental firearm related deaths are at an all time low. Suggestions for what? The NRA proposed armed guards. I would propose lifting "gun free zone" laws since all mass shootings but 1 since 1950 have occurred where guns are banned.

Barriers? How about we enforce the 20,000 gun control laws we currently have, and enforce them uniformly, consistently, and effectively? Cho (VT shooter) shouldn't have passed the BGC, but did b/c we don't do a good job with the laws we have. Violence is illegal, as is the purchase, sale, ownership, carriage, and use of a firearm by violent criminals and other prohibited persons.



Agreed. Why do we need to damage our hearing? I'm tired of banning or taxing things simply b/c they could be used to commit violent acts. Everything, including bare hands, can be used to commit violent acts. We should be innocent until proven guilty, not all presumed violent criminals. We don't do this for the 1A or any other item in the BOR. The NFA of 1934 needs to be repealed, and if the gun control lobby or Obama really believed in compromise, they would offer this up. They have offered up nothing.



This is the major problem that many people have with universal BGCs. If it's all about keeping criminals from buying guns, then why do we need to record the SN? Moreover, BGCs are guilty until proven innocent. That's another issue people have.

Plus, BGCs failed to stop the VT shooter, for example, and are not well enforced currently. Expanding a poorly enforced law doesn't make a lot of sense. We should first enforce what we have before passing more unenforced laws.

Yes, suppressors should REALLY be taken off the NFA lists and really should be encuraged for range use. Contrary to what many think, silencers don't make guns silent. Often what they do is reduce the noise levels from 'instant hearing damage' to 'potential for hearing damage'. Taking them off the list would be a compromise position.

Better info in the BGCs would be a good idea along with a system that made appeals easier to run. In a recent thread I saw a person who was denied the right to buy a gun for reasons of mental competency. The person had been a ward of the state as a child. As she described it, at age 15 another girl in the home claimed she was suicidal. This of course started the hole mental process off. It was later decided that she was not and the other girl had made the story up. However, no one took that off her record (where ever that record is kept). So now she is in her early 20s. She wants to buy a gun but can't. She needs to have that lifted from her record. Normally this is something a parent could help with but her "parent" was a state. Now she can't find the right people to clear the paperwork without a lawyer she can't afford.

So it would seem in this case we have someone who shouldn't be on the list but is. That wouldn't be a big deal if getting things cleared up was easier. Hence, a good compromise would be tighter list but with a clear appeals process for those who don't know why or disagree with why they are denied.

This BTW would be separate from the idea of universal BGC. That, unlike simply having better info on the list may not prove as effective as some claim. Also, the current system includes a record of the gun, not just the buyer. Perhaps a compromise on the universal BGC would be private sellers would have a way to check the background but no SN info would be recorded. A universal BGC system without protections to keep the government from tracking who owns what is a dangerous thing.

I am not clear. Either their ultimate commander is the gov of Texas or the president. And either the SCOTUS is superior to Texas laws/courts or not. There is no "should it come down to it," It is one way or the other.

Yes, and should it come down to it, the Governor of TX.

The "ultimate" authority is the US Constitution. I'm pretty sure they swear an oath to defend the Constitution, not the POTUS

IHowever, that wasn't the point of the thread. What I was wondering about is if this were treated as a true give and take. The take might be an AWB or might be a magazine limit (I leave it to the individual poster to suggest the take). So what is the give? There are certainly things the pro-gun side would like. I also think there might be things the pro-gun side would want more than what is currently legal. For example I do think that expansion of the rights of carry permits and some basic limits regarding the limits local governments can subject gun owners to would be a worth while thing. I think the common good would be better with say a 10 round magazine limit but carry laws that create a federally recognized carry permit that would allow carry in places like schools and other "gun free zones".

I would accept a reduction of magazine capacity to 20 rounds, if silencers were removed from being NFA and no longer requiring a tax stamp. However, I also recognize that should one use a silencer in commission of a crime, that they should receive a stiffer penalty were this to happen.

Silencers would be useful in home defense, as they would remove/reduce the need for hearing protection in a confined space. Which would be really handy, should a 2AM intruder need to be dealt with.

People were pretty clear about this in the last election -- they do not want Rick Perry leading this nation -- not by a longshot.


Ever heard of the Supremacy Clause?

The "ultimate" authority is the US Constitution. I'm pretty sure they swear an oath to defend the Constitution, not the POTUS. When the POTUS gives an illegal order, he ceases to become an authority. The SC has become a Kangaroo court. It is every patriots duty to not follow illegal laws. And I doubt many Texans would have a problem discerning right from wrong, good from evil.

Molon Labe!