An actual compromise bill

I realize the vast majority of you won't even consider this kind of thing but I've done a lot of research on gun laws in America and other countries and I think I came up with a pretty good foundation for a compromise bill. Basically this would replace all current laws (including state laws, thats the important detail) with a leveled licensing system that provides for unrestricted ownership and concealed carry so long as you qualify for a fairly easy Shall-Issue license. Manually operated long arms just need a background check, handguns and semi-auto long arms without detachable magazines require a Class 2 license that is based loosely on a Florida CCW, semi-auto long arms, SBRs, sawed offs, AOWs, destructive devices, and magazines holding over 10 rounds require a slightly harder to get but still Shall-Issue Class 3 license, Full-Auto will be open for production and sale again but will require a Class 4 license that is essentially Shall-Issue but the ATF has a limited veto power.

The general idea is that this would provide what I think are reasonable regulations on ownership that should shut up anti-gunners for a long time and also secure all state+territory concealed carry, guaranteed rights for people in blue areas, and re-opened production of machine guns.

I know I'm mostly just going to hear "SHALL" but can those of you who are open to at least discussing this sort of thing read it and provide constructive criticism on things I left out or just general ideas? I'm just some guy on a computer so I know I must have missed a few details.

here it is: pastebin.com/hHB31b4i

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_and_legal_rights
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

*semi-auto long arms with a detachable magazine (class 3)

What's there to discuss? Stop trying to regulate my God given rights.

>Stop trying to regulate my God given rights
You don't really have any pertaining to guns though, if you take any kind of gun into New York without getting a local license and the police see it you will go to jail. Even whatever red state you live in probably has dumb gun-free zones while still letting every jackass buy a gun on craigslist to shoot you in that area.

Rights need to be protected to have any value, and you aren't going to get unrestricted full autos and constitutional carry just like that, it requires a serious discussion and compromise.

SHALL

This would remove all weapon import bans and allow military personnel to bring guns as war trophies right? If so then I'm all in

As far as "compromise" goes, the only thing I strongly dislike about this proposal is the heavy usage of licensing. It accomplishes nothing. The agenda of the anti-gun moral brigade is the total banning of all firearms from private use, so attempts at compromise are futile. If you give them an inch, they'll take a mile. Also things like SBR, SBS, AOW should not even exist as definitions and have no place in refactored firearms law. Pure stupidity.

the "right to bear arms" is a feature of English common law, not the Natural Law - it is not "God-given"

>compromise
No. We've compromised our way into the shitter enough already.

You're right, I'm not open to any "compromise" because gun owners have done nothing but fucking "compromise" since 1934 and it hasn't done a single fucking thing to lower gun violence. I want my fucking rights back god damnit.

NOT

>if you take any kind of gun into New York without getting a local license and the police see it you will go to jail
That has nothing to do with natural rights, and everything to do with a corrupt shithole that refuses to punish its enforcers for regularly infringing upon those rights.

Your rights are what you can defend with force, nothing more and nothing less.

no compromise
live free or die

BE

FAP

Yeah I put that in the unorganized list of additional rules at the bottom, anything legal to own is legal to import (obviously the ATF gets to keep an eye on it all so mgs dont go straight off the boat to biker gangs but you get the idea)
My model is largely based on that of the Czech republic, there is a simple process to weed out overt whackjobs and guys who want to go postal that afternoon but it generally lets any normal person obtain and carry guns wherever they want, and you may notice that I made all NFA items other than MGs and explosives as easily obtainable as ARs, the fact that I mentioned them by name is just to make it simple to understand, the actual bill should just abolition and replace the NFA.

INFRINGED

we cant give anything
anything that is lost will not be given back

Ok I will play.

Will you be the one knocking on people's doors to enforce your "rational compromise"? Or will you be sending armed people to do that for you.

BY

Okay then go ahead and do it, my bill won't stop you if all it takes is an idea and a moron with a gun

CHOCOLATE

MEN

RAIN

It's a natural right. Just because common law codifies it doesn't mean it's not something all men are born with.

Please read the whole thing, there is a generous grandfather clause. Nothing about the bill suggests taking away current guns, its just a way to change sales so things can get better in the future (and better immediately for lawful gun owners due to all state concealed carry)

I don't trust the government with the records they have of shit I do now, why would I be ok with more?

Also, you're so incredibly wrong it's laughable. Nothing you do will shut antis up, they'll never stop. You're wasting your time and energy if you're trying, and making people on your side hate you as well.

I can get on board with this, so long as being black is automatic disqualifying condition for all licenses. Same with being a woman and with being poor.

Concealed carry is bullshit. Open carry is better in every way. The only reason to carry concealed is if you're in an area where you aren't allowed to have a gun.

You're not going to reverse ambush somebody who has already gotten the drop on you.

The left doesn’t think in terms of compromise, just incrementalism. They will never say “Well, this is fair. We won’t ask for more after this.” They don’t just want “common sense gun regulations” any more than they ever just wanted gay people to be able to do what they wanted behind the privacy of closed doors. This ends with Christian bakers’ lives destroyed by not baking the cake, and with you disarmed and then vanned for posting a Tweet that hurt the feelings of a member of a protected class.

The idea is nice, better than the system we have now at the very least. But It'll never happen. Every "compromise" we've had has only taken, and it's not going to change any time soon.

Also, How does this idea handle pre-existing guns? Are we just going to grandfather most of the gun community in as class 3 out the gate?

>the right to defend yourself isn't a natural right because English law also protects it

Exceptional boys, /thread

Hmmm.....
No sir, I don't like it.

I hate people like you who pretend to be retarded, because people like you make me feel sympathy for communists.

This is literal shit. Just take Canada's PAL system and implement it into american law without the retarded classification system, allow CC and none of the daily background check shit.

There have actually been quite a few cases of a huge joint bill getting things done and shutting people up for a while, look at Bill Clinton's welfare reform.

imblying the right to property isn't a natural one
imblying guns aren't property

OR,

We don't add any regulations. Easy.

Is this one of those Icelandic ponies? I like it. It looks very smug, I like smugness in a horse.

Yeah essentially, I'm honestly not entirely sure how this would work because the ATF might be bothered by people physically walking into their office with an AR-15 to be certified for a license but the general idea is that if you can show that you have a LEGALLY owned weapon of a certain class (this isn't going to be like the '68 machine gun amnesty, that was fucking weird) you get to keep it and if you pass the background check and maybe a reduced version of the training requirement you get the license (no long waiting period). This would obviously get a bunch of people running out to buy class 3 weapons before the law takes affect to get quicker licenses but who cares, this is meant as a big bill to make a long term difference.

We have compromised. We've compromised for decades. It's never enough.

where did god say that you deserve a rifle? literal meme. you say it because others have said it. you don't put any thought into it. you dont have any source from the word of god or jesus christ or buddha or space aliens or the Supreme Being or whatever the fuck. Its just a god given right, so its non negotiable, because of god and he wants you to have a gun. You think it gives you power and you want the power so you mindlessly parrot it

Whatever complaints you have about me being a liberal low test cuck commie socialist ess jay double-you you can tell it to my gun safe, I'm actually in the interest of preserving my collection and making progress on keeping it safe and we're going to get nowhere as long as ignorant hillbillies like you make the rest of us look bad by spewing senseless buzz phrases constantly

so as long as you have a gun pile and a fortified bunker in the woods, and you're willing to duke it out with the cops, you have the right to rape little boys?

>"I've done my research"
>SBRs, SBSs, AOWs remain a thing, and are not regulated identically to handguns
>handguns are regulated less than long guns
>fully automatic firearms are still considered something special

Yeah, sure.

>magazines holding over 10 rounds require a slightly harder to get but still Shall-Issue Class 3 license

Yeah no. If for no other reason than there are millions of these already in circulation. And for any mass shooting this just pushes the shooter to choose a pump action shotgun and constantly topping off. At which point we have to revisit shotguns and anything with a loading gate or that takes stripper clips or en-bloc clips.

> that should shut up anti-gunners for a long time

But it won't. See above.


I've done a crap ton of reading and thinking here and your biggest mistake user is thinking there is a coherent middle ground. There isn't. The points of coherence lie much further to the extremes than most people are comfortable visiting. Which means that the middle ground will never be stable. The only stability comes from the two sides being unable to grab more ground. So I'll back my side and keep fighting rather than back a "compromise" that will gain nothing in the long term.

You have a right to property, and you have a right to defend yourself. Ergo, you have a right to property to defend yourself with. These are natural laws because fucking primates and other animals have the same fucking concept. And for thousands of years, free men, and free men only, have had the right to property and the right to bear arms. We are free men, therefore we have a right to arms.

This isn't difficult you fucking brainlet. My right to call you a faggot doesn't come from the State, it comes because I am a human being and I'll say whatever the fuck I want to you. Some governments may protect this right, some may infringe upon it, but it doesn't change the fact that I have a natural right to say it.

A lot of this is not based on complete fairness but rather on providing fair concessions to the other side while preserving easy access to guns that actually are used for defense like handguns and shotguns, you can all still easily get your ARs and now much more if you go through a very simple additional process.

This, fuck OP

>Bill Clinton's welfare reform.
Every good thing that came out of the Clinton presidency was a direct result of the efforts of Newt Gingrich.

>so as long as you have a gun pile and a fortified bunker in the woods, and you're willing to duke it out with the cops, you have the right to rape little boys?
Yes. Or little girls, as the case may be. I also have the right to stop others from doing so, since I am armed and capable.

Reasonable licensing isn't an infringement upon 2A but /k/ are mostly brainlets who think the Framers were as autistic as average /k/ommandos

>where did god say that you deserve a rifle?
"God-given" is just another way to refer to natural rights.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_and_legal_rights

A natural right exists wherever a man believes it does, and is willing to act on that belief. His justification for it, religious or otherwise, is only relevant to himself.

>reasonable
There's nothing reasonable about licensing. All you're doing is stripping self-determination away from your proclaimed untermensch.

What makes you think I'm not being 100% serious? Blacks obviously can't have the same privileges as us whites. Neither can poors, who have no concept of doing good else they wouldn't be poor. And women have no place in martial things.

>getting things done and shutting people up for a while
Yes, I know it shuts people up "for a while". That's how incrementalism works, you mong. They get what they want, they shut up for a while, then they demand more. Thatcher called the the "ratchet effect" for a reason. It's how you wake up one day and realize you're in a country that's nothing like what it was when you were a kid. The answer is no.

I actually like this idea. It gives gun enthusiasts the right to purchase full auto weapons and perhaps even small things like 40mm grenades again, but makes it difficult for a crazy gunman or a nigger to buy an AR-15.

Tightening regulations on one end an loosening regs on the other would make everyone happy.

Fuck right off.

GTFO schill. You have to go take a "safe break" after you using that naughty word anyway.

AR-15s aren't death rays. And only you gun control cunts think they are.

Any kind of gun control legislation is not only unconstitutional (illegal), but it goes against our most important founding beliefs.

There needs to be less restrictions. Not more.

Any attempt to stop citizens from private sales is anti capitalism and free market, and any attempt to confiscate would be the most brazen attack on our countrys freedom we have ever seen and should be met with significant force.

>It's not based on any good reasoning, it's just some bullshit re-codification of the current customs in a way that both pro- and anti-gunners will think is worse than the current system
I can tell.

It might be possible to sell a licensing system in exchange for firearm classifications and regulations that make sense. But it certianly won't be possible to sell a licensing system that preserves the status quo, only with some new machineguns. That's not a compromise, it's just more gun control.

I could see a tiered licensing system like that working, but would want to know what hoops you'd have to jump through for a class 4. If shit like silencers, 20mm, etc, are included, & this also replaces the laws in ALL STATES, I'd probably be in. I just want to know what licensing procedures you have in mind, because if you can get a class 1, there should be no fucking reason why you shouldn't be able te get a class 4.

>What makes you think I'm not being 100% serious?
Telepathy and the fact that I've spent a decade in this shithole of a website but mostly telepathy.

Inb4 reddit spacing I like readable lists.

1) Are you American because you don't sound American?

2) This plan would be absolutely shit on by the Supreme Court. Any Supreme Court. You cannot license fundamental rights and Heller and MacDonald firmly classified the right to bear arms as a fundamental right. Imagine licensing speech, marriage (in that you have to apply to the government to get permission to marry), sex, travel, petitioning the government, practicing religion, abortion, voting, and so on and so forth.

3) Giving the ATF a limited veto power would necessitate further increasing the size of the that agency to create an internal court system to apply with the Administrative Powers (Protection?) Act.

4) You can't override the State laws. Well you can but you would create an absolute fuck ton of litigation. I mean maybe you get this under the commerce clause but enforcing state compliance would be nearly impossible. What would you take away funding from to get the states to comply?

NO
O

Is there a wait period after purchase? or is it cash for goods upfront?

Holy shit how did I forget to mention silencers, I
l'll add them to Class 3

Niggers like you shouldn't have guns because you make everyone else look bad.

The Supreme Court cases were actually about offering licenses rather than just banning them entirely, both DC and Chicago require a fuck ton of licenses to own and carry guns. You obviously just heard the meme version.

And yes I understand that overriding state laws is a big deal, but it has been done before many times, including with guns.

Just the standard background check for manually operated rifles and shotguns, higher levels just require showing a license and having the seller verify that its real.

God-given rights are not for sale, will not be compromised. What part of SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED do you fags not understand?

Some actual reforms that would not violate the 2nd Amendment:
>end gun-free zones
>allow everyone 18 and older to carry whatever he wants
>put mandatory firearms education in public schools to teach kids the unbiased truth about guns before they learn it from Hollywood and vidya
>repeal the NFA, GCA, and Hughes Amendment

Answer the question kiddo. You came up with this brilliant idea and made a thread about it, surely you have thought it out...

Will you be the one enforcing your classification rules? Are you the one who will be checking if someone with a semi-automatic firearm has a Class 2 license? Will you be the one taking the guns away from people who end up being no longer qualified for your "fairly-easy shall issue license"? Will you be checking if someone's guns were purchased through your common sense "universal background checks"?

Or are you going to delegate that to armed policemen.

Why compromise?
You are just giving your enemies an edge, they will not stop until you are disarmed.

Case and point. The Gun Laws in Romania and in the UK.

Romania's gun laws were drafted by the communists in the 60's and have remained unchanged. They were drafted while the commies where fighting open insurections against their rule and was designed to limit the access to weapons. This was a disarmament rule.
To own a gun for hunting or sporting you must be part of an association, you must train with the weapon you provide under police supervision, get police perdition and can be subjected to a check at any point by the police. You have ammo caps, magazine caps and weapon size and type caps.
If you want self defense only a few restricted people can have such a person, people under witness protection or other such extreme cases.
And if you are a collector you aren't allowed to have ammo and again be part of an association.

In the UK you have a similar deal with the permits, but you are restricted on what type of ammo you may use, what type of action you may use and other bureaucratic means to restrict ownership.

So you see a "democratic" nation and a non democratic ones having similar rules, in fact the democratic has worse ones, while having no major insurrection (Northern Ireland doesn't factor in as it has different gun laws)

So what do you fucking think you will achieve with your compromise?
A slower disarmament process and a more convoluted one is at most what you will get.

>because if you can get a class 1, there should be no fucking reason why you shouldn't be able te get a class 4.

The reason is gun control. It's explicitly designed to be may-issue, not shall issue. OP is a liar, or a fool

Oh shut the fuck up. Gungrabbers think "compromise" means "Give up everything I want now and I won't shit in your breakfast [today]."
They can all piss off. It's not like you won't be masturbating to John Oliver making funny faces while he shows cherry-picked images of inbred southerners while depicting that as the typical gun owner, like the brainwashed puppet you are.

>There needs to be less restrictions. Not more.
Then you're supporting pedophilia! Think of the children!

>inb4ing your own post
It's this that marks you as a Redditfugee, not your spacing.

That's essentially what I want, but it won't happen without some kind of compromise bill and I feel like what I wrote up is very acceptable.
We already have lots of illegal firearms, this is just a matter of adding more to the list if people don't get theirs grandfathered or just keep breaking the law. No special effort needs to be made, and I'm sure states like Wyoming just wouldn't bother with enforcement. All that really matters is enforcing it on dealers and that isn't hard.

>compromise
You keep using that word, but it doesn't mean what you think it means.

You demand concession, not offer a compromise. You don't have a gun, you don't get to demand shit from me. That's the simple beauty of the 2nd.

How fucking insecure are you faggot? Your whole mentality is the reason why you leftist are coming after the rest of us.
kys.

“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed.”
– Noah Webster,An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787

Jesus christ why cant you people get that the process of disarmament already started way before any of us were born, this is a matter of trying to stop it with something most people can accept for a long time. This isn't an assault weapons ban to temporarily satisfy one side and ultimately empower the other out of fear, this is meant to be a new system entirely.

And yeah I know all about those countries, the UKs laws are fucking autistic. Countries that allow gun ownership but dont allow it for protection are retarded.

>All that really matters is enforcing it on dealers and that isn't hard.
During the height of the War on Drugs, we couldn't even enforce a lot of drug laws on dealers.

WHEN YOU MAKE NEW LAWS YOU CREATE A CLASS OF PEOPLE WHO BREAK THOSE LAWS BECAUSE IT IT PROFITABLE

Class 3 has a tiny spec of may issue, class 4 has a little bit more scope for it, class 5 is declaredly may-issue. Class 2 clearly isnt.

The biggest issue with any sort of law and program like this is going to be future governments. They'll come in, rework and reword the law then before you know it, we're right back at square one. Now instead of putting in this framework, why not attach those additional liberties to ccw permits? It could be like a second amendment gold membership. You pay maybe a bit more for a ccw permit so the state can wet its beak. You get access to nfa items without a tax stamp and call it a day. Your ccw expires or you move states? Well, throw in a provision for keeping your shit. So at a federal level, you could have an m16 in california and they can do fuck all about it. However, what would happen in time is nfa items would be stripped from the permit, fees increased, and most, if not all of the shit we enjoy now would be placed on the permit. Just like with the 18 for long guns and 21 for handguns bullshit, the state will eventually think. "oh gosh guys, they need permits for these cool things, why not have them get permits for the other things too"

And, y'know, the 14th Amendment, but that's no big deal.

Here's my compromise:
As a free citizen of my country, I can build or own any weapon I want at long as I can store it in a manner that doesn't make it a danger to the public in my absence. You want a nuke? Fine. First get a nuclear silo signed with an inspector's mark. Want a F35? Find somewhere to park it where some 14 year old asshole won't take it for a joyride and loose a few sidewinder missiles at a passenger jet. See? That's compromise. I get anything I want and occasionally you can send someone around to make sure it isn't going to blow up my house and give me hi-fives if it's something he wished that he had. If I have TNT stored improperly, I get a fix-it ticket.

traitor

>2) This plan would be absolutely shit on by the Supreme Court. Any Supreme Court. You cannot license fundamental rights and Heller and MacDonald firmly classified the right to bear arms as a fundamental right. Imagine licensing speech, marriage (in that you have to apply to the government to get permission to marry), sex, travel, petitioning the government, practicing religion, abortion, voting, and so on and so forth.

You are mistaken. Many of those things do require licenses. DC v. Heller had to do with a handgun ban. McDonald v. Chicago concerned an unissued license being a de facto handgun ban.

From DC v. Heller itself
"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."

Why give into leftists demands when the Republicans hold the House, Senate and Presidency and show no sign of losing in the foreseeable future and when gun ownership is both a right wing issue and most guns are owned by the right?
There is no risk of insurrection, of democratic opposition only of traitors and cowards in the GOP that will get shafted for their treachery in the long run.

You have yet to explain what the fuck you will gain by giving into the left's demands?
The left will gain a lot as their constituents will gain confidence and you own will lose some.

No now fuck off
>B-b-but d-debate me and provide a better idea!

No now fuck off and go drown in a hole filled with goat shit

>How fucking insecure are you
>You must have a little dick
>You're probably a virgin
No compromise. None. Take back what is yours, by the force that you are naturally-allowed to wield.

I'm drunk, I hate you, fuck off.

I'm obviously talking about licensed dealers, there would still be a black market but the whole concern the left has is that pissed off kiddies can just go to a legal and proudly labeled gun store and walk out with an AR-15, getting illegal guns requires either serious technical nohow or connections.

Yes they overturned an outright ban and made it shall issue licenses. That significantly different than the federal government creating a blanket licensing law. This proposal is not narrowly tailored. Besides the court was willing to consider striking down the DC licensing law however, the petitioner dropped that issue at oral argument.

Also yes state laws have been preempted by Congress numerous times but the standard there is gun legislation part of the traditional state police power. That's a grey area for sure.

>Jesus christ why cant you people get that the process of disarmament already started way before any of us were born, this is a matter of trying to stop it with something most people can accept for a long time.
So you wana give up and lick the boot and hope you aren't the one to get kicked in the ass?
They are not gona stop.
In the 1900s in both Romania and the UK you could go to a hardware store and buy and gun you want, if you wanted to you could custom order a machine gun.

Again your reasoning is either stupid or malicious.

>this is a matter of trying to stop it with something most people can accept for a long time
You can't stop it, because they won't accept it. They take every inch they can get and go for that mile, every single time. The only way to stop it is to kill them, and THAT is what you cannot accept.

"Respondent conceded at oral argument that he does not 'have a problem with ... licensing' and that the District's law is permissible so long as it is 'not enforced in an arbitrary and capricious manner.' Tr. of Oral Arg. 74–75. We therefore assume that petitioners' issuance of a license will satisfy respondent’s prayer for relief and do not address the licensing requirement."

I'm a little but confused by what part of that was criticism and what was a legitimate alternative, I think your ccw idea could be great but I don't see it passing when the real push is the other way, the left needs a bone thrown their way.

>the whole concern the left has is that pissed off kiddies can just go to a legal and proudly labeled gun store and walk out with an AR-15
No, it isn't. That's just their smokescreen.

Ok little shill. Your obvious deflection and refusal to answer a straightforward question is laughable. Even worse, you actually made a thread on /k/ about this.

The other thing that gave you away is your lack of understanding about private sales and lack of registration records.

Your "common sense compromise" would criminalize millions of law abiding gun owners. We get nothing in return, you get nation wide gun registration, licensing, and restrictions on the overwhelming majority of firearms in the U.S (semi autos with standard capacity magazines).

Also, it is clear from your posts you have no fucking clue what you are talking about.
"Any kiddie can just walk out of a gunstore with an ar15!"
"Getting illegal guns is super duper hard guys, you need serious technical know how and deep connections!"

At least put more effort into your shit thread if you want to shill gun control here.
There is no debate to be had here. You don't get to disarm us.

SHALL