Background checks looking like the "compromise"

[Charles L. Cotton]

Okay, but how about answering the question. Would you accept the coalition's offer or would you refuse?

Chas.

I would accept the offer.

This really is all about losing the fight eventually isn't it?

Anygunanywhere

You are now an NRA lobbyist, at least in spirit. They/we do exactly what you have done, argue fervently for everything we want, then we are forced to make the best deal we can. Usually we get everything we want, but during times like we are now facing, that's not always possible.

I have been in many committee and other political meetings arguing the very points you have raised, then we get down to business and hammer out our legislative agenda or other plan. Sometimes I leave with a big smile, sometimes I don't even want to talk to anyone. That's politics.

Chas.

[Wes]

The only compromise I have heard in any of these topics that I would consider a compromise, would be national reciprocity in exchange for gun show nics for private sales. I say compromise because we get something, they get something. If we are simply talking about two things we can lose, and the compromise is we only get to lose one instead of two, I don't really see it as an honest compromise. They aren't conceding anything, we are agreeing to concede less. If it came to it and our only choice was to accept a small loss of the gunshow nics checks and we didn't lose the assault style weapons/magazines, then ok, something is better than nothing. However, at this time do we really have to settle for that? Is that where we are already? Are these the conversations actually going on? It would be disappointing if so but I really hope we have better options. I know it's merely a scenario for the sakes of discussion but I hope it's not how it goes down.

[anygunanywhere]

Okay, but how about answering the question. Would you accept the coalition's offer or would you refuse?

Chas.

I would accept the offer.

This really is all about losing the fight eventually isn't it?

Anygunanywhere

You are now an NRA lobbyist, at least in spirit. They/we do exactly what you have done, argue fervently for everything we want, then we are forced to make the best deal we can. Usually we get everything we want, but during times like we are now facing, that's not always possible.

I have been in many committee and other political meetings arguing the very points you have raised, then we get down to business and hammer out our legislative agenda or other plan. Sometimes I leave with a big smile, sometimes I don't even want to talk to anyone. That's politics.

Chas.

Let me see your warface, Charles!

Anygunanywhere

[Wes]

I am not an expert on everything involved with a NICS check other than what I experience when I buy a new gun, but how about simply a law that requires a NICS check
(Or have had a NICS check in the past 90 days or so) to enter a gun show with exceptions for CHL, LEO, children, etc..?

I know that's not a perfect solution and probably has a few issues\concerns in the details but it would preserves private sales outside of gun shows and will give the perception of closing the loophole.

Feel free to point out any problems I might not be seeing with something like this. I'm not going to cry if it's a bad idea.

So if I convince a friend or family member to join me just to look around, I have to go pay 20-25 bucks just for the privilege of getting to pay to get in the door? I couldn't think of a worse outcome.

What I think would be a good compromise for the gun show concern would be to persue what the NRA already wanted a little further. Make it a requirement for gun show organizers to have a dedicated table with low cost nics checks available to those conducting private sales. Give people an easy option and they may take it. Can anyone think of a good reason against this?

Mr. cotton, do you know the story behind this effort and whether it would/could be a viable option to deflect the arguments today?

[Charles L. Cotton]

The only compromise I have heard in any of these topics that I would consider a compromise, would be national reciprocity in exchange for gun show nics for private sales. I say compromise because we get something, they get something. If we are simply talking about two things we can lose, and the compromise is we only get to lose one instead of two, I don't really see it as an honest compromise. They aren't conceding anything, we are agreeing to concede less. If it came to it and our only choice was to accept a small loss of the gunshow nics checks and we didn't lose the assault style weapons/magazines, then ok, something is better than nothing. However, at this time do we really have to settle for that? Is that where we are already? Are these the conversations actually going on? It would be disappointing if so but I really hope we have better options. I know it's merely a scenario for the sakes of discussion but I hope it's not how it goes down.

I'll answer your last question first; no, we don't have to accept anything at this point! I'm not sure the anti-gunners can get anything passed in Washington, but only time will tell. At this point, all of the media want to talk about gun control and we have to be in the debate. Talking is not doing, it's merely communicating.

My concern is that people will intentionally or unintentionally cause a rift in among gun owners by starting to pick apart everything the NRA says or does, or by falsely claiming the NRA could have done more than what we ultimately do. At this point, I'm pleasantly surprised that the usual suspects have remained quiet, but I'm sure that because the entire world sees the anti-gunners blasting the NRA and no other organization. There's a reason for that; only the NRA can block gun control legislation.

By no means am I calling for or even suggesting a compromise on any issue. I'm asking our people to take a rational approach to our perilous situation as gun owners and stay in the fight with the NRA.

Chas.

[RoyGBiv]

What's your decision? Tough call, isn't it? But your the guy who has to make the call on behalf of all Americans, so you don't get to punt. Do you accept their offer or not?

Chas.

Of course, at the end of the day I'd choose the lesser of two evils which would be to take the deal.
The next day I might be looking for a case to take to SCOTUS to argue constitutionality. If the deal was "rate me an A", that doesn't prevent me from arguing in the courts.

The only compromise I have heard in any of these topics that I would consider a compromise, would be national reciprocity in exchange for gun show nics for private sales. I say compromise because we get something, they get something.

As was mentioned earlier, this won't float, I get it...
How about we at least try to "fix" the GFSZA to exempt CHL's that are "recognized" by a State.? Just change the word "issued" to "recognized". One changed word. A token, sure, but it keeps us all from committing a federal crime (technically) when we travel to reciprocal states.

[EKO]

What I think would be a good compromise for the gun show concern would be to persue what the NRA already wanted a little further. Make it a requirement for gun show organizers to have a dedicated table with low cost nics checks available to those conducting private sales. Give people an easy option and they may take it. Can anyone think of a good reason against this?
?

Add access to the stolen gun registry and I would consider these a good compromise as long as the check is not mandatory

[texanjoker]

If we loose the right for individual sales it is just another piece of our 2A rights taken away. They will continue to chip away at them to eventually they are gone completely.

Agreed, but where was everybody when other states already did this? In CA you have to take a gun to a FFL, and they actually keep the gun for 10 days while this happens. I wrote the NRA and others but they didn't do anything about it.

You are presuming the NRA could so something about California laws. The simple fact is we cannot; the State is controlled by liberal in LA and San Francisco and until/unless that changes, gun control will be the order of the day. Thankfully, California laws do not spread around the country as many Californians believe. That was the joke when I was in law school; California perceived itself as being on the cutting edge of legal thought when in actuality they were universally scorned.

Chas.

I pray you are correct on that. Time will tell.

[texanjoker]

I wonder of the FFLs support this as it will drive business their way.

I've seen four different TV news reports at Houston areas gun shops and shooting ranges. Every single one of the business owners (obviously FFLs) support a requirement for background checks on all private transactions. Each claimed it was a matter of "public safety" but that was a lie. It's all about money.

What is interesting is that several people shooting at ranges were interviewed and the majority of them supported background checks private sales at gun shows and a large percentage supported background checks on all private sales. These are people who not only own guns, but were out shooting them at the time they were interviewed.

Chas.

Of course gun dealers support this. They then get paid to process all sales and make $. It's a win win for them.

[texanjoker]

I am not an expert on everything involved with a NICS check other than what I experience when I buy a new gun, but how about simply a law that requires a NICS check
(Or have had a NICS check in the past 90 days or so) to enter a gun show with exceptions for CHL, LEO, children, etc..?

I know that's not a perfect solution and probably has a few issues\concerns in the details but it would preserves private sales outside of gun shows and will give the perception of closing the loophole.

Feel free to point out any problems I might not be seeing with something like this. I'm not going to cry if it's a bad idea.

NCIC checks won't work. That would be extremely cumbersome and would be expensive to have the man power to do it. In addition, you cannot just run a criminal history check w/o reason as they are heavily audited. In counties in TEXAS alone, criminal history is not being updated as required. Additionally, on warrant entries alone, one could have felony warrants in any given place across the nation and it will not show up in NCIC. It only shows up when the holding agency will extradite. It would list nationwide, or within given parameters like a TX warrant saying extradition in adjoining states only. That means they will not extradite from CA, WA, ect.

[mojo84]

I wonder of the FFLs support this as it will drive business their way.

I've seen four different TV news reports at Houston areas gun shops and shooting ranges. Every single one of the business owners (obviously FFLs) support a requirement for background checks on all private transactions. Each claimed it was a matter of "public safety" but that was a lie. It's all about money.

What is interesting is that several people shooting at ranges were interviewed and the majority of them supported background checks private sales at gun shows and a large percentage supported background checks on all private sales. These are people who not only own guns, but were out shooting them at the time they were interviewed.

Chas.

Of course gun dealers support this. They then get paid to process all sales and make $. It's a win win for them.

I too suspected this would be the case but thought it better to ask and verify rather than assume as many would do.
I think you know where I'm headed with that.

I see this as part of the divide and conquer tactic that can be very effective when dealing with highly volatile subjects such as this. I think it is very important we recognize this and make sure we band together and not allow the anti-gun
movement divide us and get us bickering amoungst one another.

With that said, I think the FFLs are shortsighted on this and it will eventually come back to bite them.

[A-R]

Here's another problem with universal NICS checks. ONLY FFLs can do them. So the next step in the gun control gameplan is to continue making FFL an unpleasant, expensive license to have - drive the coffee table FFLs out of business first, then the mom & pop LGS. Why do you think Biden's task force wanted to talk to Wal Mart so much? Hey Wally, support us and in a few years you'll be the only FFL in town and everyone who wants a gun will have to pay you - even if they don't buy it from you.

ONLY way I could accept universal background checks is with exceptions for CHL, LEO, and a broadening of WHO can do the NICS checks ... force each state's top LE Agency to do them for free (or small fee) at any state police location in that state ... and set strict time limits like the 60-day shall issue Texas CHL rule

[Mike1951]

The only compromise I have heard in any of these topics that I would consider a compromise, would be national reciprocity in exchange for gun show nics for private sales. I say compromise because we get something, they get something. If we are simply talking about two things we can lose, and the compromise is we only get to lose one instead of two, I don't really see it as an honest compromise. They aren't conceding anything, we are agreeing to concede less. If it came to it and our only choice was to accept a small loss of the gunshow nics checks and we didn't lose the assault style weapons/magazines, then ok, something is better than nothing. However, at this time do we really have to settle for that? Is that where we are already? Are these the conversations actually going on? It would be disappointing if so but I really hope we have better options. I know it's merely a scenario for the sakes of discussion but I hope it's not how it goes down.

I'll answer your last question first; no, we don't have to accept anything at this point! I'm not sure the anti-gunners can get anything passed in Washington, but only time will tell. At this point, all of the media want to talk about gun control and we have to be in the debate. Talking is not doing, it's merely communicating.

My concern is that people will intentionally or unintentionally cause a rift in among gun owners by starting to pick apart everything the NRA says or does, or by falsely claiming the NRA could have done more than what we ultimately do. At this point, I'm pleasantly surprised that the usual suspects have remained quiet, but I'm sure that because the entire world sees the anti-gunners blasting the NRA and no other organization. There's a reason for that; only the NRA can block gun control legislation.

By no means am I calling for or even suggesting a compromise on any issue. I'm asking our people to take a rational approach to our perilous situation as gun owners and stay in the fight with the NRA.

Chas.

If we could stand our grand and not allow anything to be passed, wouldn't this discourage anti-gun bills from being filed in the future?

I know crusaders like McCarthy would continue filing their perrenial bills, but a big win now would certainly diminish support.

If the checks at gun shows should pass, I see this as the beginning of the demise of gun shows, making it a double win for the anti's.

[mamabearCali]

Of all the awful things out there the NICS check is in theory the least nasty of them. However my concern is that this could be used to create a de-facto gun registry in the future. We could try to make that impossible by law, but the powers that be can always get around it. The second amendment is very clear on arms....do not infringe....yet here we are talking about infringing on peoples private property and their ability to transfer it to another person.

Why should a grandfather have to pay a $25 surcharge to give his grandson his shotty. If I buy a mosin nagant for my father's birthday and I want to give it to him do I have to pay for a background check on him. He is my dad I know for darn certain that he is not a felon or mentally unstable. It would do nothing to stop anything bad from happening. As we saw with Lanza, if a criminal is denied he will simply go looking for another avenue to get what he wants.

If there is no other choice but to cede this or lose our weapons then so be it. But let us not give in just to give in. Remember, if you give a mouse a cookie.....

edited for grammar

[StewNTexas]

I am having trouble keeping all this straight. Call in for a background check will probably (for sure) include the type and serial number of the firearm. Starts to sound like they will want to know what is bought, not just who bought it.

Would this make this a documented purchase?

If you inherited one, and did not 'call' it in, would this be an undocumented purchase? What if you and a friend just swapped firearms, with little or no 'boot' in the trade. Is this undocumented.

The left's defination of undocumented has been in the news almost every day when talking (preaching) about people that may slip over our borders. It would appear the undocumented part might get you free health care, tuition assistance and probably an Obama phone.