This is why Michael Bloomberg and the gun control crowd have been pushing their disarmament agenda. We react, react, react, and they tell a bunch of lies to a population who mostly doesn't pay much attention. The long term prognosis for gun owners is not good.
And so we need a long term plan, one that will allow us to counter the gun banner's proposals with counter proposals of our own. Our proposals should be simple, easy to understand, and seem reasonable to the population that really hasn't been paying much attention. Bringing up this "Gun Owner's Bill Of Rights" will let us educate voters while making our opponents look strident and uncompromising. Since that's exactly what they are, this shouldn't be difficult. If they want, say, and "Assault Rifle Ban" then we should roll out one or more of these as demands. A compromise is a two way street, after all.
Of course, since they don't want compromise, these will be a poison pill. We will take the fight to them for a change.
Immodestly, I would like to offer a draft Bill Of Rights here. This list is by no means exhaustive, and could be fleshed out with even more (hint, hint: start fleshing out).
1. A concealed carry permit issued by any US State shall be valid in all other US States and Territories, just like State issued driver's licenses and marriage licenses. After all, these permits require a background check by the police, so what possible justification exists for not recognizing them, other than a desire to disarm lawful gun owners?
2. All States shall issue a concealed carry license upon application as long as the applicant passes a criminal background check. It is a long established principle to exclude felons from possessing weapons but since the Second Amendment explicitly recognizes the right to keep and bear arms, no other exclusion is permitted. After all, you don't need a license to go to church or to discuss politics with your neighbors - the First Amendment recognizes these rights and you don't have to provide justification to the Government to exercise them. As long as you're not a felon, you shouldn't have to justify this, either.
3. Citizens who hold a valid concealed carry permit from any State should be permitted to purchase a firearm in any of the 50 US States or Territories. This is currently illegal, but this is a holdover from the 1960s when the technology did not exist to do instant background checks and when very few States issued concealed carry permits. Since all firearm purchased from gun stores require an instant background check, there is no reason to prevent law abiding gun owners from purchasing a firearm wherever they are - unless the goal is not to reduce crime but rather to prevent people from buying guns. If you are on vacation in the United States then you should be able to exercise your rights.
4. The current $200 tax (and the very slow application process for the tax stamp) on noise suppressors is to be repealed. Hollywood and TV shows are wildly unrealistic about how quiet these make firearms - even with a suppressor a firearm is as loud as a chain saw. All the current law does is cause hearing damage to law abiding gun owners.
Each of these are sensible proposals to 80% of the population. These are common sense proposals that we can use bring those people onto our side. These all can be presented as restrictions only on the law abiding who (duh!) are not the problem in this country. These let us start going on the offense.
As I said, this is by no means a complete list. Anyone who wants to add a suggestion feel free in the comments. One thing that I would ask is that we keep suggestions to the following:
- Provide an explanation as to why the suggestion will reduce burdens on law abiding citizens
- Keep suggestions to what will get 80% support from the Great Undecideds. Sure it would be fun to have fully functional tanks, but this isn't the hill to die on
19 comments:
Actually the silencer thing is easily resolved. Hollywood depicts silencers as magically reducing the sound of a gun shot to less than 70 db at 10 feet. Let’s ban Hollywood silencers. Any device that fails to reduce the sound of a gunshot to less than 70 db at 10 feet is a suppressor and no longer controlled by the NFA.
There are no pro-gun proposals that will get 80% support from the Great Undecideds. The rest of it is a fun exercise.
1. Every gun law starting with the 1934 Gun Control Act is Un-Constitutional and null and void. No registration needed, no permit to carry. If you are a citizen and can afford a gun, have at. Be responsible.
2. The 2nd Amendment is held to be binding on the States. No state may infringe on the Bill of Rights.
3. If you have in prison and you are released, your rights are restored to you. If we as a society can't trust you to be out in public where you can buy knives, rope, gasoline, garden chemicals, etc., you shouldn't be out. Keeping you from having a gun is impossible anyway. See rule #1.
4. I want the whole cake back.
Conservatives generally suck at offense, I'm not sure why.
@ASM826
Can I get an “Amen!” Absolutely!
+1 to what ASM826 said.
Borepatch,
I am kind of disheartened at the comments that I see here so far. It seems as if everyone is just willing to give up, and let the gun banning bunch have their way,and only fight on their own, or not at all.
Repeal the act of 1934? Good luck with that. Let me know how that works out.
And the silencer/suppressor issue, just complicate it, instead of how Borepatch puts it, actually being proactive.
In fact, being proactive about everything, is a much better way of going about getting our rights back, and the only way that we have a snowball's chance in hell of getting a damn thing back is by starting with getting our message in the minds of the people who don't actually have an opinion one way or another. They are out there. Gun owners who have a few long guns in their closet, and maybe deer hunt every fall, but that is about it. I know they exist, because my dad was that guy, my entire life. He was an Army vet, never in any war, never carried a weapon in time of danger. We had a few shotguns and rifles in the closet, that only came out once or twice a year.
No one was a member of the NRA, or got involved in gun rights. It was just assumed that we would always be able to go deer hunting every November here in Michigan. Maybe when I got older I went small game hunting a few times a year.
That describes probably 100 million gun owners in our country. And it is them that we have to get to wake up and understand that it is in their interest to support the idea of having more of their and our rights restored and others added, making it closer to the way that the founders envisioned.
Borepatch, you have my vote, and support. You can get in touch with me via my e mail. I am not anyone of importance though. I hope that you get support from those who are important in the community.
Pigpen51
I am convinced that we can do a world of good for gun rights once we loudly make light of the fact that most gun control legislation, such as requiring a permit, started in the 1870s as a way to keep guns out of the hands of freed slaves. In fact, I would hope that this would do away with the need for permits to carry, but I am willing to have one, if for no other reason than to prove to someone at a glance that I have no criminal history.
As an aside, most people try to compare gun permit reciprocity with driver's license reciprocity, and say "we should have a law like that one." But those people don't know that your driver's license is honored in other states because of an agreement between the states, not because of any law. Honestly I prefer this to manage carry permits, versus passing some federal law, because I believe that once we let the federal government say yes to carry permits, they can, in the future, change it and say no.
I am not suggesting the repeal of the 1934 GCA. I am stating that it is un-Constitutional and is null. It needs to be challenged in the Supreme Court in light of Heller and overturned. No legislative action needed. Use the same judicial actions that the Democrats like to use so much.
5. Any case dealing with an overt obstruction or infringement of a right protected in The Bill of Rights must be granted cert by the Supreme Court.
In 3, the spoonful of sugar that could sell it would be restricting interstate sales to buying from FFL's and not face to face. Then when the sky doesn't fall, open it up to all sales.
The idea being suggested here (and most of the comments pro and con) are all examples of picking a fight with someone who doesn't acknowledge you exist. Anti-rights efforts within the American political infrastructure as that currently exists are foredoomed to failure due to said political infrastructure having been crafted to allow infringement upon human rights in the USA. We can continue confining our efforts to the judicial branch, or we can do something a bit more proactive and shift the political infrastructure.
Eric S. Raymond suggested something along those lines recently:
http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=8443
I responded in his comments, and on my own blog thusly:
https://wheretheresawilliam.blogspot.com/2019/08/whats-in-name.html
Some effort (hopefully better named :)) along these general lines, that has the fundamental objective of altering the general perception of human rights to American citizens, and does so in a manner that makes inescapable how that knowledge has direct effect on their individual lives, is going to be necessary to shift the average citizen's perception on the rights issue(s). I't all well and good to fight the good fight in response to the offenses of those who oppose individual liberty and freedom of expression, but that has no obvious effect on the day-to-day concerns of most people who don't actually work in the political/legal infrastructure of the US.
Making a chain of clubs that make understanding how rights work as part of their foundational structure would be a way to making that shift in awareness. Making that understanding part of how the club membership can improve their own economic condition would be a way to make acquiring that knowledge desirable to the average citizen.
After that, it's the horse to water/make it drink problem.
A Weapon-owner's Bill of Rights:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
No more, no less. Weapon? Yes. Simple as that.
Seriously...
I just saw a program dealing with stuff dug up from Normandy.
Knives, axes, machine guns, mortars, brass knuckles...
All are weapons. If you can afford it, and no stupid tax stamps or 'authorization' needed, then go for it.
Use it in an illegal manner, then there are already a bizillion laws against doing things like threatening people, destroying property, killing animals, killing people and so forth and so on.
Simple as that. Weapons? Yes. No more, no less.
That's all.
For those that can't understand that, well, the State and the States shall back the heck away from a person owning 'stuff' and that's it.
No more, no less.
Until then, the Government and Governments are in violation of the 2nd Amendment of the Bill of Rights.
No more, no less.
Enough.
If a politician or a lobbyist can't understand the most simple sentence in the whole Constitution and the Bill of Rights, then they are the problem and need to be infringed.
No more. No less.
My very favorite proposal(s):
- Fund firearms training in all public schools, starting at around age 10.
- Make the training available to all, and at all grades, but especially girls, and especially through high school.
- For those who make it through at least the last two years of training in high school, present them with a servicable firearm of their choice upon graduation from high school.
Kurt
ASM826
I agree that the gun control act of 1934 is unconstitutional. I think that any law that limits the free persons rights as concerning firearm possession, up to and including individual military arms, such as fully automatic weapons, is unconstitutional. However, an unconstitutional law, unless you can stop it from being enforced at the end of a gun, is still a law.
If the state of Michigan where I live passes a law that I cannot possess a handgun that is able to hold more than 6 rounds, it might be unconstitutional. But unless I want to be a law breaker, the government will enforce that law, and I run the risk of being arrested.
Now, it would be unfortunate that I would lose all of my handguns in the lake, but unless I wanted to either be arrested or become violent, until the law was reversed by a court, that unconstitutional law would be the law of the land. Just saying it is null won't stop the police from arresting people who break that law. I am of course being facetious, with such an extreme example, but I believe that the idea of a 200$ fee for a short barrel shotgun is a facetious example of a dumb idea.
As long as we have Republicans in control of at least one of the 3 branches of the government, we think we are safe. But what happens when the Democrats once again take over, as they had in Obama's first 2 years? They did nothing on guns, because they wanted to get Obamacare passed, and it took all their energy. But if they did not have that, you can bet that gun laws would have been front and center. If we don't get busy now,the next time they have the chance,with Bloomberg's money,they will take all they can get, and we won't stand a chance to stop them.
So, what are your proposals for the exercise?
Democrats don't care. They want to disarm you, so they can control you. The Constitution means nothing. The laws mean nothing. The will of the people means nothing.
It is pointless to try to come to a deal with the TWANLOC group. Even if it could be done they will not honor it. And they aren't going away. The sands of time are running out for Bloomberg but he will structure a foundation that will continue the same. It isn't his charisma that is energizing the enemy, it's his money.
The only way to get what either you or ASM826 want is to separate. We simply can't maintain the Republic with the current borders and population but we could maintain it without the Clinton Archipelago. If we do otherwise, the outcome will be either defeat or an enormously destructive civil war. In the latter case, what we will need to do to win will destroy the Republic anyway.
"The right of the People to keep and bear arms, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED."
What is so difficult to understand?
We accept every other part of our constitution, each of the other nine points of the Bill of Rights, and for the most part, they stand as they were written over two hundred years ago.
Why have we as Americans allowed so many thousands of "changes," "adjustments," "clarifications," or "restrictions" on this one, simple, clearly written, section of our Constitution? Maybe we agree with some, probably we disagree with most, but most of these laws have been levied on law-abiding citizens and have had little or no effect on the criminal class.
In my opinion, gun laws should be limited to: You shall not commit murder, and: You shall not present or infer that you have a firearm when you commit a crime. Beyond that, allow, as out Bill of Rights confirms, honest, law-abiding, citizens to police themselves.
I can't disagree more.
1. A concealed carry permit issued by any US State shall be valid in all other US States and Territories, just like State issued driver's licenses and marriage licenses. After all, these permits require a background check by the police, so what possible justification exists for not recognizing them, other than a desire to disarm lawful gun owners?
No. You don't need a permit to pray. You don't need a permit to write things on paper and hand them to people. You don't need a permit to read a book or a newspaper. You don't need a permit to walk to the store.
2. All States shall issue a concealed carry license upon application as long as the applicant passes a criminal background check. ... As long as you're not a felon, you shouldn't have to justify this, either.
No. You don't need a background check to pray, write things on paper, read a book or a newspaper, buy a shovel, buy a hammer, buy quicklime, drive a car, operate a bulldozer, buy tannerite, etc... If at one point you started a religion that whipped people, then someone complained it was abuse, and you (as the leader) went to jail for a bit...you're not suddenly "free but not allowed to practice any religion".
1 and 2 combined: Anyone legally considered an adult who is not currently incarcerated can own a gun. Period. Any government official who attempts to deprive or prevent a legal adult who is not incarcerated from owning a gun shall be hanged in the town square.
Aaron,
While that sounds grand, unless you have a huge amount of support for those hangings, the only thing that they will accomplish is your imprisonment, and then execution.
The problem with our freedoms, as protected by the constitution, is that they are both a political issue and a physical or personal issue. I am thinking first about the 2nd amendment, but it applies to all rights. Political because there is a political fight over our rights and how liberal we interpret them. Will we interpret them to mean that the government has very little to say about our ability to own personal arms, of any available type, up to and including military weapons, or will we interpret them to say that the government can tell us exactly which type of guns we can own, and how many bullets they can hold, and who and how many guns one can purchase each month? And of course, many other political arguments.
And physical and personal because we own guns, and possess them, and by having laws, that infringes on our rights to keep and bear arms, and forces law abiding citizens to actually prove our innocence before we can exercise our rights, which is certainly not what our founders intended. You don't have to submit any statement you want to post online to the government before you post it. In some countries, you practically do.
I think that the next 10 years will be a time of extreme danger for both sides of the question. And I am afraid that the government will force it to erupt into violence, in order to give them the ability to say that drastic laws are needed to protect citizens from guns,and gun owners. And they, the lid will blow sky high.
pigpen51
Post a Comment