Captains1911
Member
I misread the question and mistakingly voted yes.
No, I don't believe in that "compromise" at all.
No, I don't believe in that "compromise" at all.
Would you support a suppressor compromise...?
- Thread starter berettaprofessor
- Start date
- Status
OP
OP
berettaprofessor
Member
I did consider this Wally, but figured federal law would trump state law, like it does in most instances.
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
The "logistics" of it? There aren't any logistics of it because it isn't even being suggested by anyone in a position to even begin to make it happen. Sort of like arguing for or against the "logistics" of every American citizen being given a 1-lb gold brick. What's the point of discussing HOW?
I find these "compromise" threads curious because for the life of me I can't ever remember being offered the opportunity to trade one gun right for another. Don't even recall something like that being on the table federally or in any state.
Literally, "you give up this and we'll give you that?" Nope, that's just not how any of these things work. The primary reason is most likely because that would be to tacitly recognize that there is nothing particularly WRONG with citizens having the right they're holding back to bargain with. Once they acknowledge that the right would be acceptable for citizens to have then there's no way they can keep up the facade of just how dangerous and evil it is. Once that's gone, they'd be shown in their naked glory as merely holding back natural rights as bargaining chips. That's a little too much like showing how the sausage is made for public to be allowed to see it.
The only way they have the power/authority to hold gun rights in check is if they maintain the public hue and cry that all guns are dangerous and gun rights need to be severely limited. Once they admit publicly that there are any rights that people don't have NOW which would be "safe" enough to grant them, all that fear power goes "poof."
Twiki357
Member
NO COMPROMISE. I don’t have a suppressor, but probably would if it weren’t for the cost and hassle. NO to universal background checks. First; it would drive up the cost of a firearm due to all the transfer fees that would be imposed. Second; it would never be even reasonably effective without total registration of all firearms, and then only a maybe after years and years of transactions. And how many otherwise lawful gun owners would become criminals for FTF sales?
That would be the next STEP they will use if there were "Universal Background Checks".
The next step will be "Universal Registration" after "Universal Background Checks", because the anti's will cry that the only way "UBC" could be effective would be if there were "Universal Registration".
Imagine if there were a 'glitch' in the NICS if "Universal Background Checks" was in effect? No one would be able to legally obtain a firearm.
I could see people being thrown in jail because they cannot "prove" that the firearm they have in their possession was obtained before or after the "Universal Background Checks" took effect...unless of course everything was registered ...for their 'protection' (from prosecution against obtaining a firearm without a "Universal Background Check...because they had it registered with the government and all the papers were in order).
People forget quickly what happened in Calgary just a scant couple of months ago when there was a flood and the government CONFISCATED peoples firearms...for their 'protection'. How did the government know which houses to go to? They had a database...
Last edited:
deadin
Member
As of the time I'm responding the vote is about 15% for and 85% against.
I wonder what the percentages of gun owners that would like to have a suppressor vs. those that don't give a hoot about them. Maybe about the same?? I know I don't want to give anything just so you can have a cheap suppressor.
I wonder what the percentages of gun owners that would like to have a suppressor vs. those that don't give a hoot about them. Maybe about the same?? I know I don't want to give anything just so you can have a cheap suppressor.
mljdeckard
Member
I don't need to read past posts 2 and 3. That says it all.
Texan Scott
Member
What good will your suppressors be when they demand the surrender of the registered firearms you attach them to?
Neo-Luddite
Member
A deal with the Devil is a deal with the Devil is a deal with the Devil.....
I say no way, my main reason is that having to register the can is what keeps me from buying one. UBC is or will quickly become a registry.
Also, there is no amendment for the right to keep and bear silencers. Or bipods, or scopes, etc. I would not EVER give a fraction of my 2A rights for the right to keep and bear 'accessories'
Also, there is no amendment for the right to keep and bear silencers. Or bipods, or scopes, etc. I would not EVER give a fraction of my 2A rights for the right to keep and bear 'accessories'
22-rimfire
Member
Nobody in the legislature is purposing such, so it's a mute point. It would never happen.
FROGO207
Member
In order for me to even CONSIDER any type of compromise the other side will actually HAVE to compromise on some EQUAL point. So far it has been all TAKE and no give since the start of regulating any firearms stuff. SO that would be a NO!!
Thanks Sam - good perspective. IMHO, the point of discussing "how" is what I interpreted as the question of the OP: would we be in favor of it if the "how" were acceptable (agreed there are many varying interpretations of what "how" means and the related and realistic ultimate culmination of such logistics), so that's why it's being suggested - it's hypothetical to generate thoughtful discussion.
To me, the point of discussing "how" is just that: we are here to discuss, debate, etc. RKBA matters and this is one that is personal to some of us because we wait a year or more (not 6 mos. as the OP suggests) for a rather expensive purchase that carries no additional perceived threat than the firearm itself. If I could fill out a 4473 for a suppressor and not have to bother with the NFA trust (my CLEO is a non-starter), BATFE forms, $200 additional, etc. I would do it in a heartbeat. There is no real, grounded or logical reason that a suppressor is any more of a sensitive purchase than any other firearm or accessory - it isn't even a firearm (we can debate the SBR, et al items of course but the OP suggested a suppressor).
"You give this and I'll give you that" is EXACTLY how many things in life work - in fact it's precisely the challenge that faces our beloved Republic as we speak. Drawing a red line/line in the sand is successful in a minority of circumstances. Every business (or otherwise) deal I have ever made involves some level of negotiation: I'll give you a 4473 for a suppressor if you let me have it today and I do not have pay an extra $200 for an otherwise innocuous item, plus wait until my kids are in college to take possession. Where is the harm in making it the exact same as every gun I purchase?
I am not asking to trade a RKBA right, I am agreeing that the OP may be suggesting something better than we have now. The BATFE process candidly sucks, and for no valid "logistical" reason except a couple of laws that at least make it legal for us to own them (NO, I do NOT condone the restriction, but it is the law of the land and I am one of those who actually believes our laws should prevail - if we don't like it, take it to SCOTUS now while we have some support on the bench). If I can't pass a 4473 legitimately and without any perceived bias, then I wouldn't get the firearm to begin with...to which I wouldn't be able to attach that suppressor acquired through a "compromised" process.
Please tell me where I'm off base here - always willing to listen. Thanks!
BTW, I make my own sausage.
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
Wait...did you perhaps misunderstand the original poster's suggested "compromise?"
He wasn't suggesting 4473s for SILENCERS. He was suggesting we accept the "UBC" -- Universal Background Check for ALL FIREARMS. That's the big push the opposition has failed to jam through Congress all this year.
The question is would you accept not being legally able to sell firearms "privately," i.e. without government paperwork, in exchange for removing Silencers from registration under Title II of the National Firearms Act. Is having cheaper, easier access to silencers worth not being allowed to sell a gun to a resident of your state at a gun show? Or to your neighbor? Or to give one to your brother or son?
jrmiddleton425
Member
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2011
- Messages
- 663
I've posted something like this before. If they want universal NICS, here's what I want:
*Age to buy a handgun from an FFL lowered to 18.
*Carry in any state on a permit from your home state.
*Buy any Title I firearm over the counter, in any state, with NICS check.
*Suppressors over the counter with a NICS check, and make them legal in any state.
*Age to buy a handgun from an FFL lowered to 18.
*Carry in any state on a permit from your home state.
*Buy any Title I firearm over the counter, in any state, with NICS check.
*Suppressors over the counter with a NICS check, and make them legal in any state.
OP: "Yes or no...would you support a deal that traded over-the-counter availability of suppressors, no restrictions, and no waiting periods, for the "universal" background checks the gun control crowd wants?"
As always, great clarification point Sam to note the points I did not address in my post (apologies THR brethren and sistren).
NO, I am NOT suggesting that UBC as a blanket is acceptable. I am suggesting that current BATFE rules using the current NFA system are not acceptable, AS LONG as (in the spirit of the OP) the UBC system is specifically used for NFA items, AND is more efficient logistically than the current nightmare.
We tend to overreact on private sales (good luck tracking them). An EMPHATIC NO to your last paragraph. Revert to my original material post on the matter for my position - ZERO reference to private sales…but good luck with that one.
As always, great clarification point Sam to note the points I did not address in my post (apologies THR brethren and sistren).
NO, I am NOT suggesting that UBC as a blanket is acceptable. I am suggesting that current BATFE rules using the current NFA system are not acceptable, AS LONG as (in the spirit of the OP) the UBC system is specifically used for NFA items, AND is more efficient logistically than the current nightmare.
We tend to overreact on private sales (good luck tracking them). An EMPHATIC NO to your last paragraph. Revert to my original material post on the matter for my position - ZERO reference to private sales…but good luck with that one.
roger that jr: you said it better than I did. For NFA I'm willing to go a bit further based on experience to date.
Last edited:
No
The desires of the few don't outweigh the needs of the many.
The desires of the few don't outweigh the needs of the many.
Lucky Derby
Member
Here's my compromise:
undo '34, '68 & '86, and all other Fed gun laws. Abolish the ATF.
Complete pre emption, IE: no state, or local level gun laws.
We, in turn, agree not to charge the gun grabbers who support this nonsense with treason.
undo '34, '68 & '86, and all other Fed gun laws. Abolish the ATF.
Complete pre emption, IE: no state, or local level gun laws.
We, in turn, agree not to charge the gun grabbers who support this nonsense with treason.
556by45guy
Member
No.
Why? Because there is nothing in the US Constitution which "grants" the federal govt the power to regulate guns (and many many other things). The (gun) laws we live under are an unconstitutionally asserted power.
Why? Because there is nothing in the US Constitution which "grants" the federal govt the power to regulate guns (and many many other things). The (gun) laws we live under are an unconstitutionally asserted power.
Texan Scott
Member
556x45: ABSOLUTELY right, and thank you. Preemption of States' rights is a poor substitute for reasonable and proper restrictions on federal authority.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked