Split Between Reid and Obama?

So says the Washington Post, but the article speaks of how Democrats may accomplish gun control:

Senate Democrats have yet to decide the order: whether to start with background checks — their most likely victory — and try to build momentum, or to save that for the final piece so the effort ends on a positive note.

I’ve talked about the dangers of momentum before, and one reason to oppose the entire agenda is so they don’t get any. It’s also interesting that they admit the other measures are not “positive.” That is correct, because the are punitive; they punish all of us for the actions of a madman. The fight against the background check bill will undoubtedly be the toughest, but the anti-gun people should have to give something up, and by that I don’t mean we only take half your delicious cake instead of the whole thing. It means you insist on having some of my cake, I get some of yours too, which was really mine that you took from me in the first place.

I sincerely hope any bill that starts moving gets amended with some of their cake. Then they can decide what they are willing to give up. Often times that’s enough to kill the bill, because when it comes down to it, they aren’t willing to engage in real compromise.

20 thoughts on “Split Between Reid and Obama?”

  1. Wouldn’t it be nice if there was just ONE repub with the b**ls to put a little amendment into any anti-gun bill that would repeal the ’34act, the ’63act and the ’89act?

    1. Hell, I’d take one of two things: repeal the Hughes amendment or remove suppressors from NFA status.

      Now, that’s not to say I would support any bill. But if they want a comprise- let’s see about that.

      1. THIS!!! OH SO THIS!!! If they want to have a negotiation and compromise, they have things on their plate they can now let go of.

        I might be willing to compromise on that because honestly I think there would be two possible outcomes:

        1) They refuse, it all stalls and kills negotiation on both sides. Nothing changes.
        2) They get back ground checks, but we get suppressors and new full auto guns on the market. This builds our momentum. There would be a rush on both suppressors and new guns. Yeah the lack of private sales would hurt, except we know that there is no real way to enforce it. We can turn around and fight it later as we build more momentum. It ultimately would be a defeat for our opponents, they would have to actually cede ground legislatively, not judicially.

        I’d like to hear anyone else’s ideas of how our opponents could actually net a positive with a deal like this.

        1. I think there are things minimum that ought to be considered:

          1. Anyone with a state issued license (to carry, or in states that have them, to own) is exempted.
          2. C&R FFLs get extended to cover all firearms.
          3. Dealer FFLs go back to costing little, and all the extra requirements added under the Clinton administration get dropped. If everyone has a buddy who’s got an FFL, it makes things easier.
          4. All restrictions about buying firearms out of state are gone.

          But yeah, if we could get Hughes, personally, I’d gladly make that trade. I’d almost enthusiastically make it.

          1. Some verbage clarifying common usage would be nice as well.

            But even just getting rid of some NFA restrictions means that the items will be in common usage soon enough.

          2. Can’t say I’d disagree with any of that. In fact, what you’ve offered is a great compromise! But I doubt they want that. Still, let’s start there.

          3. Specific concerns I’d have would be about rural folks.
            – How is someone in rural Alaska supposed to get fingerprinted for a C&R license when there isn’t even a state trooper in their town and they’re not on the road system?
            – How is someone who lives hours from an FFL supposed to do a transfer to a family member or neighbor?

            Alaska doesn’t even require driver’s licenses off the main road network because many places don’t have the infrastructure to issue them.

            The other issue is: how is the .gov going to enforce this? If I give my wife a 30-30 without going through the prescribed process how can anyone find out without registration? Without registration, I can always claim we did the transfer at “some FFL” a few years ago and that it is not my concern what happened to the 4473, right?

            1. Well first you don’t need fingerprints for a C&R.

              But you do raise why it would be a bad idea. However, if its coming down the pike and there is a strong push for it, why not try to get some concessions?

              1. Exactly as I said, make them give something up if the want “compromise”. If something is going to get passed, by god lets get something out of the deal.

                There was also this concern during the 94 redesign of the FFL requirements. So here’s a question, how did the 94 change affect FFLs in Alaska?

          4. I could buy into all of those. Especially 1 and 2. Scrapping Hughes would be awesome though…

      2. I would grudgingly accept “universal background checks” [1] in exchange for striking 922(o) and instituting national carry reciprocity (along the lines of LEOSA, but without the requirement for the annual qualification & LEA sponsorship) for ANY CCW, even non-resident permits.

        Background checks run by an agency that is in ANYWAY involved in enforcing firearms laws? [2] Hell no.

        Background checks where I must go through an FFL? Hell no.

        Background checks where I need something more than a phone and a national hotline I can call? Hell no. [3]

        Background checks that require anything more intrusive than the buyer’s identity? Hell no. [4]

        Background checks which report more than “Clear” (default), “Denied” (prohibited persons), or “Blocked” (people who have opted out of being checked by non-FFLs out of privacy concerns [5])? Hell, no.

        Background checks which retain the check data for more than a stautorily limited short period (say, 30 days), unless the feds have gotten a search warrant to hold data for either a specific person being checked or a specific phone number running checks? Hell no. [6]

        [1] A NATIONAL check — I have no intention of handing Emperor Bloomberg, Governor Moonbat of California, or the Premiere of the People’s Proletariat of Greater Chicago a ready made list of probable gun owners they can “forget’ to purge. Yeah, teh feds have screwed us on Brady Chekc purges before, but if it’s only at ONE agency, there is only ONE agency we have to monitor.

        [2] Shouldn’t even be a law enforcement agency anyway — it’s a call center that accesses a simplified database that holds only the personal ID of people who are either “prohibited” or who have chosen to “opt out” for privacy concerns (see note 5) — not WHY they are “prohibited”. Putting the National Check Center under LEA control is a conflict of interests.

        [3] If you want to make an online version for the Intarwebz, fine. But I should be able to do it from a payphone, if I can find it.

        [4] You do not need to know the seller’s name, any information about teh guns (including how many), etc. The only point of the check is, after all, “to keep people from inadvertently selling to criminals and other prohibted persons”, right? So all YOU need to know is who is being checked, so you can tell me (the seller) if they are on your “naughty list”. See note 1.

        [5] Real simple — if they “opt out”, you list them as “Blocked” (no further information available in the National Check Database). Blocked people should be allowed to buy through the already existing FFL/4473/NICS system, which at least has some safeguards against random strangers abusing the check system. “Denied” individuals are those listed as being prohibited persons (but not why they are prohibited). “Clear” is the default — anyone not listed as “Blocked” or “Denied” is automatically “Cleared”. If someone is incorrectly listed as “Denied” or “Blocked” (or wants to get unblocked), they should have the stautory entitlement to appeal to the FLEA responsible for updating the database for the National Check System, with a strict time limit to either verify the person is prohibited or be forced to delete them from the “blocked” or “denied” lists. (Contrary to teh wails of the statists, this is the way to handle such lists, under Anglo-American legal precedent; YOU are not required to prove your innocence — the State is forced to prove your guilt, and must presume your innocense until then.)

        [6] See note 1. However, I do not have a problem with a search warrant (judicially issued under probable cause) for either a particular person getting checks run on them, or a particular communications channel (phone number, IP address, etc.) initiating checks. I suspect you will net very few fish that way (only exceptionally stupid murderers and tax evaders would be doing firearms transactions with background checks), but if you are building a case against Jimmy “the Hitman” McMurder or think Cletus is running an unlicensed gun business, you could call checking up on their checks simply thorough investigative work. (Besides, even dirtbags screw up. Maybe Cletus didn’t think anyone would notice he runs 100 checks a month, despite having no FFL, or Jimmy likes to buy his murder weapons from sportsmen who insist on running the legally mandated check.)

        1. Oh, and with “universal background checks”, we should insist that interstate transfer prohibitions for ALL face-to-face transfers (longarms, handguns, AND NFA) be eliminated.

          After all, the background check is supposed to “keep guns out of the hands of those who cannot be trusted with guns”, right? That’s what they keep telling us, anyway. So, let’s take them at their word — with universal checks, there is no compelling government interest, thus no legitimate justification for state and local bans. . . (I included NFA because they run through ATF, who already does a more intrusive background check on NFA transfers.)

  2. But for the first time since Obama became president four years ago, his political interests and Reid’s may be diverging. Not so much because there is huge disagreement on the president’s agenda, but because helping Obama may hurt vulnerable Democrats in the Senate.

    This is bullshit. Reid et. al. were willing to do this with Obamacare because the stakes were high enough; unless it’s repealed soon enough, or American turns out to be truly exceptional, history tells us it will be a roach motel into European style social democracy … well, that’s ignoring the minor detail of the money running out (they really took too long since Truman first tried), but then again who knows when?

    Gun control is just not in the same league, plus it’s been a successful liberal cause for a century so a lot of resistance based on experience had built up. Our new experiment with nationalized healthcare is just beginning (Medicare, due to its Ponzi nature, hasn’t really bitten us yet).

    But five months later, the NRA declined to endorse Reid, deciding instead to stay neutral in the election. Reid won but considered the NRA’s silence a betrayal.

    Any sign that’s really true? He’s a small enough man I can believe it. Of course, the real story as far as I know is that the membership’s reaction to the NRA’s championing of Reid’s pork palooza alluded to below this quote was so negative they had to back off and not endorse him (e.g. my father ended his contributions beyond yearly dues).

    But … Reid didn’t know he was going to win, and losing that support probably … upset him, maybe more than a bit.

    So, in all this excitement, maybe he’s asking himself one question, am I going to lose 6 Senate seats or only 5? Does he feel lucky?

    1. “Reid won but considered the NRA’s silence a betrayal.”

      Well if he considers that a betrayal, by all means pass an assault weapons ban. I’m sure those two helpful Supreme Court justices he helped approve will overturn it, in their wisdom.

  3. I would add national CCW reciprocity to the mix. Trouble with all of the NFA stuff is it doesn’t really affect bluedom since they would just outlaw it at the state level. CCW reciprocity on the other hand would be a most bitter pill for them and actually help more of us than NFA reform.

    On balance, however, there is nothing I would willingly trade for criminalizing private transfers. That is the wedge for a gun registration system and thus the liberals support it. I know it is against the law to retain the Instant Check records but since the Obama administration has shown itself to be lawless, I don’t really believe the records are destroyed. I could support legislation stating the the law at gun shows is the same as the law anywhere else. :>)

  4. Just add National Reciprocity to any bill. The Libs will jump out of their skins to withdraw it.

  5. Our hopes lie in the house, where hopefully the republicans will reject this out of hand. I know Harry reid is a democrat, but he is a BIG supporter of the 2nd amendment so this won’t even come to the floor right? Uh, right guys?

  6. Easy: offer to ban the 30 round magazine for the removal of all gun free zones.
    We all know the public perception of 30 round mags is poor, and it is already on the chopping block. This move will look like we are offering a huge sacrifice, and we get more protection for the ones we love in return. The majority know that gun free zones really don’t work, so if they refuse the gun grabbing minority has a big black mark on their record.
    Simple to understand, a ‘fair’ trade, and a win /win for us if we’ve got to take a hit.

    1. And what magic number do you let them get away with? No… I’m not for trading like that. You don’t trade with bans.

Comments are closed.