If legislation is all about compromise, I have an idea. Here's a compromise, every one of us will license ourselves and register any of our guns used off our own property, just like driver's licenses and registrations. The compromise being that immediately and without fail the government will build public ranges within convenient distances of all of our homes so that we can use our licensed and registered guns just like our cars. Having licensed and registered them, just like cars, we will then be able to carry them, any of them, openly or concealed, ANYWHERE, just like cars. And if there are buildings that we are to be prohibited from entering then gun "parking" facilities will be provided, just like cars. Transfers will be based on signature only between any two parties, and even by mail, ebay, or craig's list. Guns used exclusively on private property will not need to be licensed, just like cars, and shooters who shoot on private property will not need to be licensed.Blindref757 wrote:Legislation is all about compromise. If they are determined to reenact the ban, the GOP should at the very minimum fight for a 20 round max on handgun magazines, and no federal registration.
I don't think that a Glock 19 or an XD that hold <20 in the standard magazines should be included in the ban. And you can't recall current AR's unless you are willing to pay fair market value for them.
But here is a better idea. They shouldn't even spend one second discussing guns until they can assure me with a Balanced Budget Amendment, that we will not have an economic collapse in this nation like Greece. Because if Greece happens in the USA, I will need and will use my AR-15 and my XD if necessary.
I could go on, but I think you get the point.
True "compromise" is a deal based on negotiation between two parties starting from some status quo point and each side gaining some benefit. All the gun ban nuts want to "compromise" is that gun owners will do all the giving up without gaining.
Would I trade my full capacity magazines for (unlicensed) national concealed carry? Well, I might think long and hard about it, but I think not, but I might agree to a drop back to zero and then restrictions on full auto weapons similar to NFA before the pre-1986 ban, in exchange for national (unlicensed) concealed carry. That's a compromise I MIGHT be able to live with.
===========================================
BTW, has anyone noticed, I haven't seen a comment about it, that it says "registered under NFA"?
Wouldn't that mean that, as for every other NFA, we have to pay a fee to register a firearm we already own? Isn't that an "ex post facto" law? Chas?