search
top

Compromise

Robb Asks:

Waiting periods for firearms purchases will be waived if the person purchasing the firearm has, on their possession, a firearm (unloaded, of course).

Because waiting periods are to “cool off”. If you already own a gun (and simply having it on you means you have plenty of access to it) then there is no reason to make you wait for another.

Any takers on why this would be a bad / non workable idea?

In California, or any other jurisdiction that already has a waiting period, this would be a good compromise to make.  In a situation where the passage of a waiting period is a political inevitability, it would be a good compromise to make.  Absent that, don’t make it.  The only time you ever offer a deal is when there’s a good chance you’re going to lose anyway, or you’ve already lost, and you’re just trying to make things less worse.

5 Responses to “Compromise”

  1. Something sort of like that (but offering even less for gun owners than Robb’s proposal) was introduced here in Illinois last year–HB 4554/SB 2785 would dispense with the waiting period if the buyer exchanged an operable firearm as part of the transaction. This being Illinois, even that didn’t pass (although it should probably be pointed out that most of us on the gun rights side didn’t really see it as being worthy of much active support).

  2. Robb Allen says:

    In Florida, the waiting period is waived in an exchange.

    Still a stupid law nonetheless.

  3. In Washington, if you have a CLP, there is no waiting period.

  4. Alcibiades McZombie says:

    Hmm, I already had that idea, but I didn’t tell anyone…

    Some states have defacto registries, so they could implement such a scheme. The problem is, those places are anti-gun so they never would do anything to help gun owners.

    It might be better to say: “if the dealer already has a form 4473 filled out by the purchaser (from a previous purchase), no waiting period is necessary”.

top