Dear President Obama and Members of the Untied States Congress,

I have heard a lot of talk about the desire for universal background checks.  As I understand it, the desire (mainly by the Left) is to make it such that every gun transfer, gift and sale, in the US must involve a background check of the recipient.  The idea is that this will prevent criminals from using individual gun sales to get guns they could not buy in stores.  The reality is that most criminals get guns from people they know, mostly other criminals, and when they do come from stores, they are straw purchased.  Activities rendering the NICS system irrelevant.

But in the wake of a number of high profile shootings, you feel like you have to do something.  So allow me to propose a universal background check compromise.  I lived in Illinois, which had a universal background check law, so I’m going to model this off that, plus some extra.  Keep in mind, that compromise means “you give up something to get something.”  Furthermore, this is not comprehensive, more details will need to be hashed out.

The Law

Here is what you get for universal background checks:

The PERMANENT transfer of a firearm, between two private parties, as a gift, sale, or inheritance must be accompanied by a NICS background check on the recipient.

This is null between immediate family members (parents, children, grandparents, siblings)

Private transfers must be conducted face-to-face.

A website will be created that allows the recipient to fill out a Form 4473 online, and the transferer to have access to the FBI NICS system.  Neither party has to go to a dealer (FFL) to have a face-to-face transfer processed.  No fee will be levied for access to the NICS website.

Private individuals cannot conduct third party transfers or receive firearms by mail.  Private parties cannot act as a stand-ins for dealers (FFLs).

___________________

Here is what you give up to get it:

Interstate purchase of handguns through dealers.  If you can pass a NICS check for a handgun in your home state, you can pass it in any of the other 49 states, anywhere you can pass a NICS check you can buy a gun.

Short barrel rifles (SBR), short barrel shotguns (SBS), and suppressors are no longer NFA items.  Transfer can be conducted through a normal NICS check.  You can assemble one yourself at home – e.g., if you passed the NICS check for the AR lower, you can stick any upper you want on it, no problem.

The Hughes Amendment of the FOPA is repealed.

___________________

Here is what I’d like to try to get you give up to get it:

A foundation for 50 state, national wide, concealed carry.

Allow gun owners whose “Safe Passage” protection in FOPA was violate to bring suit against the municipality or agency that violated the “Safe Passage” protection in federal court.

___________________

If you want to add some onus to the right of gun ownership for law abiding citizens, you are going to have to take away some other onus.  There is no free lunch.

Spread the love

By J. Kb

17 thoughts on “Open Letter of Compromise”
  1. They aren’t using the same definition for the word “compromise”. When they say gun-owners need to compromise they mean “compromise our beliefs & position” not “reach a mutually agreeable compromise”.

  2. Interesting suggestion. One BIG concern I have is the web site. Having buyers complete a 4473 online would be a great way for the federal government to establish a defacto gun owner registry database. I’m not sure how one would prevent the accumulation of that data unless the web site was run and manages by the NSSF or the NRA

    1. I suggested access to the 4473 system since there is already a prohibition on using the 4473 system to create a registry. They’d have to add that and I’m sure it would be blocked.

  3. I don’t trust the prohibition on using the 4473 system to be used as a de facto registry. I’d add something along the lines “States shall issue a gun license or FOID card for a minimal fee and allow the validity of a license to be verified online, and will provide a confirmation number when a license is verified. This license may be used in place of a 4473, and may be used for other purposes. Seller will not be required to log in or otherwise provide identification to verify a license” Seller could (but would not be required to) keep the confirmation number as proof that they verified, but could also be checking someone’s criminal record for other purposes.

    1. Another pro-firearm rights person exchanging the exercise of his right for government permission, which my be denied, or if issued may be revoked. If you ask permission, you are waiving the right. If you exercise the right, you have legal standing to claim it.

  4. Whoa there Nelly! Anybody who thinks J.Kb. is an enemy of the Second Amendment and Gun Rights, is cordially invited to go play at another blog. You all know my opinion about Chest Thumpers.

    1. I have no doubt he supports the Second Amendment. But like the NRA, the violations of our 4th, 5th, 9th, and 10th Amendment rights aren’t apparently worth much if we can get GOVERNMENT PERMISSION to exercise our 2nd Amendment right. They are playing a sucker game against us, Miguel, and the NRA and J.Kb and apparently you are falling for it: If they can sucker us into ASKING GOVERNMENT PERMISSION to exercise a right, and get us to happily waive our rights as described in my reply, then they can claim we don’t have any rights left to claim when they decide to revoke the permission. Their claim will be false because government has no power to scam us into waiving our rights, but people have to be made aware of what government is doing in order to feel justified in claiming our rights in spite of lawless government. There are numerous court rulings to the effect that GOVERNMENT HAS NO AUTHORITY TO ISSUE OR DENY PERMISSION TO EXERCISE A RIGHT! So why are we asking permission? Why are we giving up our right to be secure from interrogation and search of our records; why are we giving up our right to due process; why are we giving up our right to a government that exercises only those powers delegated to it, IN ORDER TO GET PERMISSION WE DON’T NEED and GOVERNMENT HAS NO AUTHORITY TO DEMAND? I’m just raising the alarm about the con-game being played against us, Miguel. It is going to kill our rights completely if we don’t wise up and stop willingly being suckered. We need a nationwide demand to abolish government permission and repeal the unconstitutional Brady Act that compels background checks. They haven’t prevented a crime in the history of the planet and were never intended to. They were and are intended to sucker us into vassalage. And I am not the only one who thinks so.

      1. Put your money where your mouth is: Open Carry in Time Square (NYC) and then get back to me after you successfully win your case in the Supreme Court.

        In the meantime, the adults will continue to do war of attrition against the Opposition.
        And win.

        1. That is a 2700-mile trip from a Constitutional-carry State to an occupied territory, Miguel. And we need to get over this nonsense that the Supreme Court issues our rights and has the lawful authority to take them away. It does not. We, the people, outrank the Supreme Court, and we the people have the right to ignore “color of law’: Your suggestion that an arrest in Times Square for carrying openly nullifies my thesis is in error; rather, it perjures the New York government officer’s oath of office to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States. OF COURSE I would be arrested and prosecuted. And given the rogue occupation government we have endured without significant complaint for many decades, I might very well lose the argument all the way to the Supremes, who haven’t had a very good track record lately of obeying their own oaths of office anyway. None of that nullifies the U. S. Constitution and the intent of the founding fathers, and the following facts remain: It is a violation of fundamental law to compel a citizen to waive a right as a precondition to exercising a right. The exercise of a right can never be probable cause of criminal conduct. It is a violation of our 4th Amendment to compel a citizen to undergo an interrogation and search of his records (papers and effects) without probable cause of wrongdoing. (Buying or transferring a firearm is not, per se, criminal conduct, and cannot be criminal conduct without violating the 2nd Amendment.) It is a violation of our 5th Amendment right to due process to take our right to keep and bear arms from us without due process (i.e., conviction of criminal conduct in a court of law). It is a violation of our 10th Amendment right for government to even license firearm dealers or enforce the Brady Act or the GCA of ’68 or the NFA of 1934, for the authority IS NOT DELEGATED. Now, Miguel, don’t be angry at me for revealing our rogue occupation government for what it is, and for challenging anyone who wants to give more of our rights away to a fraudulent government that has proven it cares naught for the principles of liberty our nation, for the first time in 50 centuries, was founded to preserve and protect. Rather, I would hope you can see the truth of my thesis and will work to put this rogue occupation government back into its Constitutional box by spreading the word. When enough people who love liberty see the truth, the truth will win.

          1. That is a 2700-mile trip from a Constitutional-carry State to an occupied territory, Miguel

            So suddenly your vigor and fortitude over the Second Amendment is tampered by something puny like distance? I thought true patriots would not be dissuaded by anything if it meant to have the 2A restored to its original intention.

            Please, do not lambaste us and dare feel you need to “educate” us when you cannot be bothered to raise from your Lazy Boy.

            Sit pretty, be quiet and reap from the work of others. At least that would be honest.

            1. I never apologize for speaking the truth, Miguel, and I wonder why you are evincing such hostility to the one binding issue that wins to us our Constitutional rights? Do you really think, for one New York Second (to coin a phrase) that our rights will be advanced by one individual with a thesis the authorities would dearly like to shut up and put on ice, going to New York and getting himself arrested and put on ice? Don’t you think it would be smarter to get the people prepared to argue the point en masse when the time comes to argue it? SCOTUS is well aware it has to have an enforcement arm to enforce its edicts, and that enforcement arm is also sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution — do you think it might be worthwhile to educate that enforcement arm as to the illegal nature of their edicts?
              Are you on the same side of the issue as I? Do you believe we have a right to keep and bear arms whether government agrees or not? If you do, why are you telling me off? I’m asking you and J.Kb not to give government any more illicit power it does not legitimately have, and to advocate it stop exercising power it does not have. It is exercising a tyranny over the people, Miguel, and I THOUGHT you objected to that tyranny.
              Here’s what I see, Miguel: I believe you (and J.Kb) ARE in favor of our right to keep and bear arms, and I believe you are in favor (if you focus on it) of our entire Bill of Rights. The NRA and several other pro-RKBA groups have been trading our 4th, 5th, 9th, and 10th Amendments to preserve our 2nd Amendment rights for years. They have, basically, been trading our RULE OF LAW for ‘permission’ to exercise our 2nd Amendment right. while the enemies of liberty have been ramping up their call to revoke the permission. Where are the smarts in that? Have you noticed the enemies of liberty are just about ready to pull that switch? (I think you have noticed; several articles lately have pointed it out.) I’ve been spending six to twelve hours a day on various gun control forums pointing out that their ultimate objective of background checks and suckering us into waiving our 2nd, 4th, 5th, 9th, and 10th Amendment rights is to confiscate our firearms, and that will require armed personnel, and THAT will constitute an armed insurrection in violation of 18USC2383 and associated statutes and that WE, THE PEOPLE, will put their asses in jail for it … the ones that survive. WE HAVE THE LAW ON OUR SIDE, and it is a law they cannot change and SCOTUS can’t change it regardless of their purely political rulings. The supreme Law of the Land is the supreme Law of the Land, and if you and I and the rest of the people in this country aren’t willing to fight for it, we are going to lose it. Now, I ask you again: What is your objection to fighting to restore our rights instead of meekly asking permission? And why are you angry with me?

              1. I never apologize for speaking the truth, Miguel

                So you do believe that J. Kb. is the enemy as you stated earlier. That I cannot let stand.
                I expect the next words posted here are either an apology or confirmation of that belief.
                Your move.

                1. First, Miguel, I did not call J.Kb an “enemy.” I asked him to not negotiate away my rights (which are also your rights and his rights, btw.) And I specifically described the rights he was negotiating away as our 4th, 5th, 9th, and 10th Amendment rights. You came right back accusing me of claiming he was an enemy of our 2nd Amendment rights, and I never said that. Furthermore, I later responded to two of his posts on this thread in which I stated that I knew he supports the 2nd Amendment, pointing out that so does the NRA — but like the NRA, he wants (I don’t think he does now, but he expressed it then) to waive all of our rights in exchange for government permission to exercise our right to keep and bear arms. Okay, you want me to apologize to J.Kb for something I didn’t do, but if it will make you and he feel better — and HOPEFULLY cause you and he to give serious consideration to the issue I am bringing up — then I will certainly apologize for the harshness of my request that he not negotiate away my rights. But Miguel, we have GOT to stop “compromising” (his word in a later post) away our rights! And we don’t have to: The Constitution is the supreme Law of the Land and we are on solid ground when we tell government “not no, but Hell no!” We have been compromising away one right after another since the close of World War II — well, that’s when it accelerated mightily, but it actually started less than ten years after our Constitution and Bill of Rights was ratified. The Constitution is solid ground, as much as ZeroBama and his con-men in the Senate and House, on both sides of the aisle, wishes it would go away. They are pretending it has already gone away. We are at war, Miguel, and our very liberty — ALL of our liberty — is on the line. The only attrition hat has worked in the last seventy years has occurred on our side. It is time to stop playing games, stop asking “pretty please, massa, can I have my rights back,” and start getting down to work. Are you with me? Do you believe we have a right to be secure from unwarranted interrogation or search and seizure? Do you believe we have a right to due process? Do you believe the federal government is prohibited exercising any power not delegated to it, and State governments are prohibited exercising any power prohibited to them? If you do, then you need to get on board loudly and vocally saying so, and pointing out that background checks violating those rights as a precondition to exercising ANY right, including our right to keep and bear arms. is illegal and a boundary violation of government power established and limited by the U.S. Constitution. Gun Owners of America are beginning to see the light, but the NRA has ignored the memo so far. What say you?

            2. J.Kb: Yes, Marbury v. Madison established judicial review in 1803 — but it was not plenipotentiary judicial review; it was review to ensure compliance with the United States Constitution. And that ruling established that a law not pursuant to that Constitution is not merely null and void from the moment of the discovery of its defect; it is null and void from the moment of its inception. That means no one may be lawfully bound to obey it. No one may be lawfully sanctioned for refusing to obey it. And the enforcers are bound to the Constitution in their enforcement, and abdicate their immunity from prosecution when they violate it, and become no different than any other lawless marauder.
              We are citizens of the first nation in the history of the planet to elevate the rights of the individual citizen above the arbitrary whim of kings and princes and neighborhood warlords, J.Kb, which is why the American people called themselves “sovereign citizens” for most of the first 175 years of this nation’s existence (until a bunch of anarchists purloined the brand and started violently defending their lawlessness from the police for the last fifty-some-odd years).
              Martin Luther King didn’t get the Civil Rights Act passed by flipping off The Man in Times Square and getting himself beaten into a puddle. He got it passed by non-violent civil disobedience based on principle. That is what I am advocating. And we have very little time left; the forces trying to destroy the principles of our nation and restore us to the status of a feudal satrapy of helpless peons are getting really close to executing their Second Bolshevik Revolution. Their First Enemy Agent infesting our White House is dedicated to their efforts.
              We need a solid block against tyranny the people have a right and the duty to believe in. I’m offering you one, if you are willing to stand up for the document that made us free.
              (BTW, Miguel: Winning by attrition only works when attrition works. The enemy is multiplying faster than our liberties.)

        2. I don’t think this argument is worth it. Marbury vs Madison established judicial review in 1803. He can rant all he wants that our rights don’t come from SCOTUS, but he’s about 212 years out of date.

  5. With all due respect….

    I belive that the intent of the 2A was to allow the people access to the same arms as the military. Which, once upon a time was true. If I have $10K to burn, I should be able to buy an M2 without a problem.

    Unfortunately, the Supreme Court dies not agree. And as an American, I am bound by the opinions of SCOTUS.

    I fear that Hillary will become our next president and universal background checks will be imposed on us. If a lame duck Obama doesn’t do it first by executive order. That is just another burden lumped on gun owners.

    I was trying to suggest a compromise that will leave gun owners better off than just having universal background checks forced down our throats.

    All the ideals about liberty are great, and I wish America was a more free place, but I have to work within the system. A system which is usually stacked against us.

    If you have a better suggestion, I’m all ears. But a complete disconnect from reality won’t fix anything.

    1. “I belive that the intent of the 2A was to allow the people access to the same arms as the military.” Yes, not “the military,” the but “the typical well-equipped infantryman, including grenades but not including poison gas.” (Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 1914.)

      “Unfortunately, the Supreme Court dies not agree. And as an American, I am bound by the opinions of SCOTUS.” I don’t know why in the world you think you are bound by the opinions of SCOTUS. No law requires you to be unless you are a law enforcement officer, a public official, or you are exercising the privilege of limited liability incorporation (also in violation of our Constitutional prohibition against Titles of Nobility).

      If the Republicans don’t get their act together you may be right about Hillary, but she doesn’t have any more legitimate power than ZeroBama. She cannot impose universal background checks, and no one is bound to obey if she does: They violate our 2nd, 4th, 5th, 9th, and 10th Amendments, and no one in Washington or Oregon (and I presume Colorado) are obeying them, and no one is being prosecuted. (Which is bad news in its own right: That means the rule of law is already on its last legs and whether to enforce a law or not is decided by the anti-rights thug with a badge because police agencies cannot enforce policy in violation of even color of law.) But we, the people, can.

      “I was trying to suggest a compromise that will leave gun owners better off than just having universal background checks forced down our throats.” I know you were, J.Kb, but dammit, that is what the NRA has been doing since 1993 and they are still doing it, and that is EXACTLY WHY Bloomberg and his subversive sycophants are now dropping the other shoe: Universal Background Checks. UBC was the intent all along. We need to reject it EN MASSE, and do what Washington and Oregon gun owners are doing — holding rallies on courthouse lawns passing guns around to each other and telling the gun control doofuses UP YOURS! (And I am happy to say law enforcement in those States are looking on with approval and refusing to enforce.)

      No, we don’t have to work within this ROGUE OCCUPATION GOVERNMENT system. We have to read and understand and support the U.S. Constitution and DEMAND government do the same. We have to stand up in court, in person, in PRO PER, as they say, and — without invoking the U.S. Constitution or any Amendments — simply say “I CLAIM MY RIGHT TO BE SECURE FROM INTERROGATION, SEARCH, OR SEIZURE IN THE ABSENCE OF A WARRANT FOUNDED UPON PROBABLE CAUSE OF CRIMINAL CONDUCT, AND I CLAIM MY RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS BEFORE MY RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS AND MY RIGHT TO TRANSACT IN THE MARKETPLACE IS TAKEN FROM ME. AND I CLAIM MY RIGHT TO A FEDERAL GOVERNMENT EXERCISING ONLY THOSE POWERS DELEGATED TO IT FROM THE CONSENT OF THE PEOPLE.” Then sit down, shut up, and let them figure it out. (And btw, have an attorney represent you in court, but don’t have him say that. He can claim law; he cannot claim your rights. It has to be said PRO PER to be binding on the Court. Only one guarantee: Either you win on the spot or the battle is joined before morning.

      And before you get on your high horse, Miguel, YES! if it happens to me that is exactly what I am going to do. If I can kick the IRS’ ass in court as a pro per and have them beg me to drop the charges and if they will leave me alone, I have no fear of doing this.

      That’s enough from me for a while. I just ask you all to think about it and start acting like free men instead of pets.

Comments are closed.

Login or register to comment.