Obviously, the gun rights community is not in the mood for comprise at all with the gun control community. It is very obvious that they are not arguing in good faith and want nothing less than the repeal of the 2nd amendment. Any compromise, even one offered in good faith by the gun community, would likely be met with betrayal... again. With that being true what follows is more of an intellectual exercise than anything.
The gun rights community wants lower gun crime and mass shootings as much, if not more, than everyone else in this country. There is a lot of disagreement over what could be done and what would work. But there would be a few things that we might agree too if some of our demands were met as well.
First of all, I think that the following things will be forever off of the table. There are somethings that will never fly with the gun rights community and if this is one of your starting positions you aren't seriously trying to reach a compromise.
-Semi-automatic weapons ban. This would ban pretty much every gun in the country that isn't a hunting rifle or shotgun. Handguns, most revolvers, the vast majority of popular rifles, some shotguns and many of the weapons used for hunting would be banned. This is a total non-starter
-Assault Weapons Ban. Again, total non-starter. This would ban most of the popular rifles and carbines. The current proposal would define the term "assault weapon" as any gun that has features including a pistol grip, folding stock, barrel shroud. After the first AWB was lifted most of those features have been extremely common and banning them would do nothing to stop crimes.
-Banning specific guns by name. First of all, gun manufactures would just change the name. Second of all, it's not the gun's fault if it was used in a crime. The same features that make it desirable for a mass shooting are what makes it desirable for home defense.
-Repealing the 2nd Amendment. Merely proposing this is pretty much a declaration of war against the gun rights community and I am not sure if that's even a metaphor.
-Magazine limits. Just no. Not now, not ever. Even the crappy 50 round ones that jam all the time should remain legal. And doing a magazine ban would de facto ban quite a few guns that can't accept smaller magazines without major modifications, either to the gun or the magazine.
Here's some things I don't think that the general public, let alone the gun control groups, would agree to but gun rights supporters generally want. I'm sure there are others that I am leaving off the list but let's just use these as examples.
-Repealing the National Firearms Act/legalizing machine guns. Even most gun rights supporters recognize that fully automatic weapons should require much greater scrutiny than normal weapons. Zero support for this outside of the gun rights community, and only minority support within it. General public would hate this idea as well.
-Getting rid of background checks. Generally speaking, even though the system seems pretty useless, it's not going anywhere. Nobody wants convicted felons or crazy people to buy guns. Background checks aren't perfect but at worst they are an annoyance and a hurdle for criminals that want to commit a gun crime. Let the gun control people have this one.
-Making gun ownership mandatory. Bit of a strawman since I haven't seen too many people argue for it, out side of making comparisons to Switzerland, but obviously not going to happen.
So what could be some compromises that the gun rights community might agree to? Keep in mind, this won't be offered up for free, but if the gun control groups actually wanted a compromise these are things we might have a chance with.
-Bump stock ban. The only people I have seen defending bump stocks are the people that own them. Everyone else either views them as a stupid range tool that can destroy your gun or a cynical attempt to get around the machine gun ban. Most people don't like them and only oppose a ban because it won't accomplish much (you can use your finger and a belt loop to get the same result) or because they want something in return for it.
A total ban of bump stocks or a reclassification of bump stocks as an NFA item, requiring the same licensing and vetting that a real machine gun requires, would likely be supported by many gun rights supporters. The few that won't support it would if they got something back in return and weren't forced to surrender the current bump stocks that are out there.
-Universal background checks. Keep in mind that there are probably a lot of gun rights supporters hating me for even suggesting it and for good reason. In many cases where universal background checks passed, the gun control community abused it. Instead of recognizing exceptions like for inheritances and between family members, the laws as crafted banned something as simple as passing a gun to someone at a gun range.
Another problem would be cost and inconvenience. Right now, if you sell your gun to a civilian face to face and you want to check them you have to take it to a dealership and pay them a fee, which means a lot of people don't do it, except during online sales where it is required anyways. Cost plus forcing travel is annoying and detrimental enough that people won't support it.
Opening up the background check system, NICS, to civilians via the internet would be an elegant solution to both problems as it would be free and easy for anyone. Plus if there was an exception for certain cases and an assurance that no stupidity like forcing background checks on people handing weapons to each other on the gun range people would go for it. Indeed, even without a gun compromise it is insane to me that I can't get an app on my phone to facilitate a gun sale with a background check. Even without expanded background checks, this one seems like a no-brainer that everyone can support.
-Enforcing current laws. Nobody in the gun rights community would be upset to see people that steal guns, bypass checks and otherwise act criminally with guns be punished. Straw buyers, people that can legally buy guns but than hand them over to criminals, should be prosecuted to the furthest extent of the law, but currently are usually let off with a slap on the wrist, assuming they are prosecuted at all.
Indeed, this is probably the one area that gun rights supporters would support stricter laws. I actually think that it should be a major felony for someone to purposefully buy a gun and hand it to a felon. I also think that people that steal guns should have a greater punishment for that than they would for just a normal burglary/theft/robbery.
If we could just focus on enforcing current laws a lot of the latest mass shootings wouldn't have happened. In a functional society, Nikolus Cruz would have been in prison and when he got out he would have been unable to purchase a gun. Same thing with Devin Patrick Kelley, the Texas Church Shooter, who should have failed a background check but didn't because the Air Force screwed it up.
-Required gun safety training for children. I personally wouldn't mind one bit if something like hunter safety courses and the like were required universally. It's fairly patronizing to give it to adults but for children, doing so could save lives.
I wouldn't mind if basic gun safety was taught in schools. Elementary students could be taught to leave guns alone and to tell an adult if they see one. Older children could be taught hunter safety or, at the very least, the four basic rules of gun safety. As long as there isn't any "guns are evil" propaganda this seems like a no-brainier to me and should be one for the gun control community as well.
1. All guns are always loaded.
2. Never point the gun at anything you are not willing to destroy.
3. Keep your finger off the trigger until your sights are on target (and you have made the decision to shoot).
4. Be sure of your target and what is beyond it.
-Including gun locks with new firearms. I'm not talking about requiring the use of gun locks. I personally believe the argument that your self defense firearm shouldn't be locked as the extra seconds you spend unlocking the gun could be the difference between life and death.
But I also think that if I had a small child in the house, I'd lock my guns so they don't play with it. A good gun safe too has that benefit as well as deterring theft. The additional cost per firearm would be minor as cheap ones can be found for a couple of bucks, with better models running $10 to $20. And if you didn't want to use it you could throw it away or give it to someone who does want one. The only real resistance you would get for this would be if such locks were to be mandatory, which would probably be a non-starter. But including gun locks with new guns and maybe even subsidizing gun safes would help tremendously and would not be opposed by gun rights supporters in an environment of compromise.
-Toning down on the rhetoric. This would be more of a cultural change than a legal one. A subset of gun rights supporters tends to go over the top when it comes to threatening civil war over gun rights. Such a position is one that I actually hold but if a good faith deal was made or even offered I know I would tone it down quite a bit.
And by rhetoric I don't mean specifically saying that the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to protect against tyranny. To say otherwise would be a lie and we all know that. But if some compromise could be reached we could agree that the left would no longer be the tyrants we are supposed to rebel against. Making that argument is obviously upsetting and insulting to the left and if they did make a good faith effort we could tone it down.
Of course none of this should be given away from free. There are many gun laws in this country that are useless and stupid that we could get rid of in exchange for these compromises. There are also guarantees that could be offered in exchange as well. What are they? Here's a few examples.
-Deregulating suppressors. Suppressors are not silencers. Silencers do not exist. Most pistols and rifles equipped with suppressors do not make the gun silent but instead reduce the noise to the point where it doesn't permanently damage hearing. An exception could be made for the military versions and .22 caliber weapons that really do get pretty quiet, but in the vast majority of cases suppressors should not be regulated under the National Firearm Act. Doing so would be seen as a good faith move by people that actually understand both guns and the gun rights community.
-Deregulating Short Barrel Rifles and Shotguns. SBR bans are extremely pointless now that many gun manufactures are making pistols in the same calibers in rifles. There is no reason why a 5.56 pistol should be legal while the addition of a buttstock suddenly makes the gun an illegal rifle. Plus, SBR's aren't really that concealable and are very rarely used in crimes. Making them illegal makes very little sense. Very easy to compromise on this one.
-CCW reciprocity. Currently you can be licensed to carry a concealed handgun in one state but as soon as you cross the border in another you can be arrested. This can cause someone that made a wrong turn into a felon and is not fair to anyone. Plus the right to carry firearms shouldn't go away if you leave your home state. Obviously states that have constitutional carry would need to issue permits for out of state carry and the states that are de facto "no issue" states would remain as is but this is an issue that should go away and most gun owners would give something up to get it.
-Assurances that gun rights' supporters 1st amendment rights aren't attacked. I have to be careful what I say here due to who hosts my blog but suffice it to say more could be done in this area and guarantees that gun rights supporters would be able to post their content on the internet via the most popular platforms would be something that could be offered up. More regulation on what the big tech companies can do concerning speech is a thorny issue but assuming something could be worked out, throwing a bone to the gun rights community would be a major act of good faith. Probably not politically possible due to people outside of the gun rights and gun control communities but worth mentioning.
-Assurances that gun rights supporters red lines won't be crossed. How this would be accomplished legally I don't know but some kind of enforceable agreement that none of the gun restriction "red lines" I posted above would never happen would essentially be a blank check in other areas. I'd give up all the compromises, today, if we had a law in place that said none of the deal-breakers could ever be passed.
-Calling out the bad actors in the gun control community. Many of these people have repealing the 2nd amendment as their stated or unstated goal and they are a major reason why nobody on the other side of the issue trust anyone who calls for any kind of gun regulation whatsoever. As long as people like Michael Bloomberg, Justice John Paul Stevens, Gabby Giffords, most celebrity activists, and the Parkland kids are the face of gun control, no compromise is possible.
I'm not suggesting that we attack their right to free speech. But I am saying that more reasonable voices should be speaking out strongly against them and returning any money they donate. Doing so would calm down the issue and make it politically possible to talk about guns in this country.
So is any of this possible? Probably not. Indeed, it's very hard not to become depressed about the whole thing. The left right now is on a crusade and any actual deal can't be made with people that don't want you to exist anymore. And the right side of this issue is in no mood to deal when they have been called murders and Nazis just for advocating for firearms ownership and having been stabbed in the back so many times.
In a perfect world it would be very easy to compromise on the issue and give something to everyone. But we live in a world that is far from perfect. Even the most sensible of deals won't be reached as everyone seems to be getting ready for a final showdown where one side is beaten forever. What that likely means is that gun laws will be loosened in Red States, tightened in Blue ones and will be dependent on what party has control at the federal level and how willing the Democrats are willing to risk seats on the gun issue.
That's the status quo and one that isn't working out anymore. I'm afraid that if any cultural issue is divisive enough to result in a civil war, it's gun rights. When compromise is not possible and the status quo isn't sustainable, what other option is there but might makes right? My hope is that I am wrong and that the status quo is sustainable as the rest of the gun control pushes have failed miserably outside of Blue states and fit the pattern. But this push feels different and if it is then things could spiral out of control very quickly...
You can search on-line court records in Wisconsin for felons. CCAP is public record of convictions in the state. If Wisconsin can do that, then we should be able to do a search nationaly. After all there is already a national data base for sex offenders.
ReplyDelete