I was called attention to The Path Forward on Guns website. After reading the proposals made there ( I am sure made with the best of intentions) I have to be not inclined to support it.
Here are my views:
Swiss-style universal background checks. Although I agree with establishing the mechanism so it is available to everybody, I dislike a couple of things: The mandatory nature of it and that you need a FFL to do so is one. It basically states that by default, gun owners are not to be trusted and they will sell guns to any mass killer or criminal out there without we giving a shit. You basically are insulting me with your kindness.
Second: There is no penalty for abusing the system. Unless you give 100% assurances that whomever abuses the database gets a minimum mandatory sentence of 5 years and a fine of $100,000 per name and/or gun data collected and that the money has to come from the offender’s pocket the system will be ripe for abuse.
Extreme risk protection orders, also known as red flag laws. Again, there is no real penalty for abusing the system. We know evidence can be manufactured, testimony given could be false and suddenly an innocent person has rights removed and thrown in some rubber room without the guilty party actually taking a risk. Some may say that violations of this are perjury and penalized under Federal statute, but I want to remind you that ol’ Billy Clinton managed to pretty much wash out the concept of perjury away. Add to it the same penalty as above and we may start to have a foundation to talk about.
Classify bump stocks as machine guns, banning them from sale. If machine guns are NOT banned, why are we banning a piece of plastic? The author “corrects” him/herself in the text but words have meaning and the title is misleading.
As for the rest: Just get rid of NFA and pass National Reciprocity. Of course the Other Side will rather drink Drano rather than accept that challenge.
To summarize: Gun Owners are still the ones facing prison time while the other side will contentedly fuck us over without fear of being penalized for abusing the system.
I can’t support this plan as well-intentioned as it may be in this present version.
There’s some decent stuff here that could be tailored to be even better for both sides. I appreciate the attempt.
I agree that there has to be a penalty for abuses of these systems.
Naw….
No. Liberty and rights are non-negotiable.
Simply: murder is murder; attempted murder is attempted murder. And any attempt to make them something else or drag the innocent, as an individual or as a group, into it, for any reason. is wrong.
The only path is: protect your rights and liberty.
Nous Defions
“I can’t support this plan as well-intentioned as it may be in this present version.”
On what basis do you assume good intentions? Do you suppose that the proposal lacks sanctions for misuse, or entry of false information, by accident? Nope, those are FEATURES.
“I dislike a couple of things: The mandatory nature of it and that you need a FFL to do so is one.”
It is indeed mandatory, but an FFL isn’t required for private sales — both the buyer and seller have access to NICS for the transaction.
The only reason I know of for advocating “universal background check” is as a tool to build a nationwide gun registry. And that is the tool needed to run gun confiscation.
The proposal comes with the notion that there will be no record kept of the checks. Can he really be that ignorant of how government operates?
So my answer is HELL NO.