I wouldn't. UBC is unenforceable w/o universal registration, and they know it. As soon as the anti-gun side gets UBC, they will argue for universal registration. No one wonders why they want a list of who owns what guns.
Of course it's unenforceable. I didn't say I would agree to an enforceable UBC. All I'm suggesting is making it a law to use the NICS system whenever a gun is sold. The gun seller would record in his records (say for 5 years, like tax records) that he sold a gun to a person with the transaction number from NICS. That would cover honest people from getting prosecuted for selling a gun to someone not allowed to buy a gun. Beyond that, I would never agree to.
If it were me, I'd take opening up the NICS to anyone that wants to use it, rather than making it a requirement for private sales. Of course, anyone that -wants- to run a NICS check to cover himself can simply handle the transfer at a dealer. The problem, of course... In the exchange you proposed, you agree to a restriction on your rights and only get a right you already have in return - according to current laws and jurisprudence with regard to other rights, no state can deny you one of you rights simply because you are not in the state you live in. And so, rather than reciprocity, I'd ask for the repeal of the restriction on the transfer of NFA firearms manufactured after 5/86. In this way, you get a portion of your rights back.
How many times has it been demonstrated to you, that as long as it is the long term goal by the left to ultimately disarm Americans, that there can be no compromise. Every state that is successful at passing anti gun laws, is emboldened to put more anti gun legislation on the table. Every time they get what they want, they go after more. This is precisely why pro 2A folks will not compromise. See.... no need for fantasy, this is real stuff.
And if the goal of pro gunners is to allow the current bloodbath to continue then we will not compromise either. I was offering a direct quid pro quo. You get and give. You said no. No matter what we give its still no. So we will go after everything
You say you guys will go after everything like thats something new. It's always been the goal of the left to go after everything. We have sure fire solutions to slow the "blood bath" as you put it. The left wants nothing to do with it if it doesn't involve gun control. You see, maybe you are interested in public safety, but your congressional brethren could care less about the specific demographic that is being killed nor their killers. If they did, they would stop fighting the many year battle for gun control, and start pushing for real justice reform.
Indeed. Gun control is people, not crime, control, as proven by the fact that restrictions on the law-abiding do nothing to restrict the actions of criminals. Everyone knows this. Everyone.
You don't have to compromise. No law against it. But then neither do we. We have our solutions and you have yours. As I said there can be no compromise. I was offering something. You claim you want something. But you offer nothing in return. And that leaves us where we are at.
This is a perfect example of not caring about bringing down the numbers of gun homicides. If the solution doesn't involve gun control, you wont touch it with a ten foot pole.
And you will not touch gun control with a ten foot pole. Nothing is open for compromise in gun control. It is not allowed to be part of the picture in any way. I suggested you make an offer in good faith. Include in it anything you want. But the answer is no. So we will work on the problem without you. The alternative is to allow the bloodbath to continue unabated.
Well, to me, being able to drive coast to coast without having to worry about gun laws would be a better exchange. Neighboring states often have very different rules about carrying weapons, even gun friendly states. In Florida, for example, I'm allowed to have a gun in the console of my SUV in a holster, provided it takes two actions to take it out, without any kind of permit. In neighboring Alabama, I'd have to have a CCW to have a pistol anywhere that the driver or a passenger can access it (and it has to be unloaded), unless i have a CCW permit. (yes, the states have reciprocity). IMHO, when travelling through a state, you should have to follow either your home state laws or the state you're visiting's laws, whichever is less intrusive. I don't see the NICS check being a big deal either way.Yes, theoretically, it's an infringement, but in reality it does little, and isn't very intrusive. I know a UBC will do nothing to stop crime, but as long as I don't have to pay a gun dealer to do it, it's not too intrusive.
What bloodbath? we are at near low record levels of gun violence in this country (outside of Chicago and Baltimore....) And you will continue to lose like you have federally since about 1994. Federal gun laws today are much less strict than they were in 1994. Your side is losing federally and has been. The last gun control success you had federally cost the dems the House majority that they had held for over 40 years. Dem House members aren't stupid. They know what happened in 1994, due to their overstepping on gun regulation.
Compared to other first world nations there is a bloodbath of gun violence in this country. Look if we have to we will go state by state. Gun control passed in a couple of states in november. I just was trying to see if there was any room for compromise. There isn't.
In what way are 1 and 2 not a violation of Murdock v Pennsylvania, and how is #3 not a violation under US v Miller?
Because Murdock is a case about religious donations and we live in a world of government permitting requirements and Miller actually supports #1 and #2, but the Heller decision more or less said Miller wasn't controlling, though you would have a hard time even if it were arguing that a magazine restriction restricts access to the weapon itself. Either way #4 likely interferes with interstate commerce which the states generally get smacked around on and it is not the least restrictive means to achieve whatever interest the government may have to boot.
They unquestionably are violations of Murdock; as soon as someone levies a $1000 tax on abortions, this case will become the darling of the left. As far as 'assault weapons'... under Miller, the only firearm better protected by the 2nd than the AR15 is the M16.
The NICS instant check is required for all Firearms purchases in the U.S. , as is the 4473 form, the C&R licence issued by BATFE, good for 5 years should be amended to allow the purchase of "Firearms obtained to 'Enhance' a personal collection". A person purchasing a firearm is identified as a vetted and properly identified person Federally Licensed to purchase Firearms of any type anywhere in the U.S. The only factor in the way of National Reciprocity is the absence of a Nationally recognized course to establish the existing current standards. For instance, I am a certified Firearms Instructor, and My certification is accepted Nationwide, there is no reason for not having voluntary National Reciprocity, it already exists in varied forms, such as the current Federal preemption that allows qualified LE Officers both Active and Retired to Carry in any State regardless of that States actual Laws regarding Concealed Carry.
That old argument makes no sense, the majority of crimes are committed by career Criminals, mostly minorities, and those people not likely to obey any Laws or Gun Control, and prove ineffective as opposed to enforcement of existing Laws and Actual sentences being passed on those career Criminals, instead of early release and probation. The Courts have failed the Public trust, taking away the People's Defense by Gun Control is not an acceptable method of preventing Crimes, it is merely a bromide and not a real solution.
