Would you rather...

Joined
Nov 30, 2018
Messages
334
Likes
478
Feedback: 2 / 0 / 0
I am by no means advocating for increased background checks, BUT if TPTB were to pass the bill that the house voted on and an amendment was added for national reciprocity, is that a trade off people would be willing to make? I know most of us would say that the BGCs are pointless and an infringement, but as a hypothetical, I’m curious where people would stand on this.
 
No
National reciprocity, if passed, would probably fall to the lowest common denominator. Shitty states will always be shitty, but drag good states down to their level.
Not worth the tradeoff when so many states are going constitutional and/or have reasonable non-resident policies.
 
National reciprocity means the 19 constitutional carry states have to give it up and develop licensing schemes. Not only is every sale tracked, but every owner as well.

How is that a win for liberty?
Just a correction on this, not supporting the OP's compromise.

Reciprocity has come up before, and even passed either the House or Senate (I forget which) as part of the fix nics bill. And it has always allowed that for states that do not have licensing all that would be necessary is proof of residence, a drivers license. So this has already been addressed.

So called universal background checks will have a differing affect depending on the state you are in. In NH the issue is having to do a check on a private sale and the Fed registry. In MA it's that PLUS no more off-list guns. Dealers would still be prohibited from transferring an off-list gun, and there would be no FTF alternative.
 
One has to be practical and strategic.

The first question to ask is "will the opposition get what they want with or without a deal?". If the answer is yes, one can choose to lose totally without any mitigation out of principle or take the deal.

This happened in WA state years ago. May issue turned to shall issue in return for background checks (pre-Brady). If our side had waited and Brady passed, the other side would have got what it wanted it WA may still be "may issue".
We already have national reciprocity.
Not we don't, unless you are one of those people into logic like "wages are not income and therefore not taxable" or "the 2A renders permit requirements invalid".
 
The only trade off I see being beneficial would be this. They get universal background checks we get national reciprocity plus a federal preemption law. A standard that would bring ban states in line with federal law. This is of course a pipe dream.
Throw in "issuance based on criminal record and training", with no consideration allowed for wealth, fame, social status or connections.
 
Just a correction on this, not supporting the OP's compromise.

Reciprocity has come up before, and even passed either the House or Senate (I forget which) as part of the fix nics bill. And it has always allowed that for states that do not have licensing all that would be necessary is proof of residence, a drivers license. So this has already been addressed.

So called universal background checks will have a differing affect depending on the state you are in. In NH the issue is having to do a check on a private sale and the Fed registry. In MA it's that PLUS no more off-list guns. Dealers would still be prohibited from transferring an off-list gun, and there would be no FTF alternative.
I'm prepared to be corrected again, but my understanding was that it passed in the Republican-majority chamber with no chance of passing the Democrat one. If that's true, it's safe to assume there would be changes needed to land in a signable condition, and I'm not convinced a license requirement isn't one of those most likely changes.
 
One has to be practical and strategic.

The first question to ask is "will the opposition get what they want with or without a deal?". If the answer is yes, one can choose to lose totally without any mitigation out of principle or take the deal.

This happened in WA state years ago. May issue turned to shall issue in return for background checks (pre-Brady). If our side had waited and Brady passed, the other side would have got what it wanted it WA may still be "may issue".

Not we don't, unless you are one of those people into logic like "wages are not income and therefore not taxable" or "the 2A renders permit requirements invalid".
Yea, I’m one of those.
 
I can think of a trade off I would support...

Repeal the NFA and GCA. I'm exchange we'll agree to a nationwide magazine capacity limit of 100 rounds.

I like this compromise. There could be another one: Go to "Constitutional Carry" (no licensing) everywhere, and in exchange, there can be a "NICS check" at purchase time. This needs to be instant, and defaults to "buy" if a delay.
 
Background checks does diddly squat for first time offenders, which many mass shooters are (especially school-aged ones). For the ones that do have a record, at best FBI knows them and does nothing if not egging them on to carry through their evil acts.

Name one in ten mass shooting events that could've been prevented by background checks.
 
I'm prepared to be corrected again, but my understanding was that it passed in the Republican-majority chamber with no chance of passing the Democrat one. If that's true, it's safe to assume there would be changes needed to land in a signable condition, and I'm not convinced a license requirement isn't one of those most likely changes.
OK I'll correct you. When it came up the Republicans controlled both the House and Senate and the Prez. 2017
 
OK I'll correct you. When it came up the Republicans controlled both the House and Senate and the Prez. 2017
So even with all three, the proposed version couldn't pass, and we're to think it might in some other e.g. our current configuration? I'll have some of whatever you're on, it must be great.
 
So even with all three, the proposed version couldn't pass, and we're to think it might in some other e.g. our current configuration? I'll have some of whatever you're on, it must be great.
See this....

 
See this....

I don't know anyone who was forced to have a vaccination.
 
Back
Top Bottom