USA – -(Ammoland.com)- Since strict new gun control measures were introduced in the wake of the Aurora and Sandy Hook shootings, I’ve heard the same line shot over and over again at the gun community:
“You’re unwilling to compromise.”
It can take various forms, but the general message is always the same. Gun owners have drawn a line in the sand, and we are stubbornly not willing to cross it.
There’s two main issues I want to explore here.
First, we have drawn a line in the sand, and for good reason. Since the passage of the National Firearms Act in 1934, gun rights have been steadily chipped away with arbitrary and meaningless legislation that has never solved a single “problem” with guns. We have seen over 8 decades of our rights being eroded away, piece by piece, with no appeasement in sight from the left.
We’re constantly promised that this isn’t a “Slippery Slope”, they’re just going to pass this new law, just this one, and that’ll be the end of it, but it never is.
Take for example the statement [at time mark 4:30 in the video above] from a Connecticut law maker, pushing for the registration of so-called “assault rifles” and magazines post Sandy Hook.
“…When they try to pass more gun legislation next year, no guarantees, but I don’t think so because we’ve done something on it. We have. And that happens a lot of the times at the capital, when there’s a controversial issue and you tackle it, it tends to go away. That’s just the way it is.”
Except it doesn’t go away, it hasn’t for over 8 decades. The problem is no piece of gun legislation will ever completely eliminate tragedies carried out with a gun, period. The fact that there will, at some point, be another tragedy carried out with a firearm is indisputable, and when, not if, it occurs, it’ll be followed by more gun control legislation targeting law abiding gun owners.
We’ve seen massive decreases in violent crimes over the past two decades, but that hasn’t appeased gun controllers in the slightest. So we know that no matter how low the crime rates drop, no matter what legislation has already been passed, they will always want to further encroach on our 2nd Amendment rights.
This is why we’ve drawn the line in the sand. This is why we don’t want to give up another inch. We know that gun controllers will simply never be satisfied until there are outright bans and confiscations. It will be done piecemeal, using every “mass shooting” as an opportunity, with acknowledgements made the whole way that “this won’t solve the problem, but maybe it will help.” And then, when the problem isn’t completely solved, they will do it again. And again.
The 2nd issue I want to address is that I never recall gun owners being offered a compromise. You see, in order for a compromise or negotiations to work, something of value has to be offered to both sides. The Left’s idea of a gun control “negotiation” goes something like this:
- Left: We want a new assault weapons ban.
- Gun Owners: No.
- Left: Ok, then we want universal background checks.
- Gun Owners: No.
- Left: These guys won’t compromise!
This is akin to someone demanding that you give them your house, and when you deny them, they demand that you give them your car instead. You deny them again, and then they get outraged because you’re “unwilling to compromise.”
I can’t speak for all gun owners here, but personally, there are issues on which I’d be willing to compromise. Once again, this means that I would have to be given some type of consideration in the deal. That’s the definition of a negotiation.
Let’s look at the recently announced Handgun License Purchaser’s Act of 2015. This bill aims to establish a Grant program to financially aid local governments in establishing a “Handgun Purchase Permit” system, which is somewhat self-explanatory. This falls under their agenda of universal background checks for all gun sales, as a private sale would require an individual to show their “Permit” to purchase the handgun.
Now I’m not totally against this idea (PLEASE bear with me before you bust out the torches and pitchforks). As a matter of fact, I think it presents an excellent opportunity for us to bring some offers and negotiations to the table.
Here’s what I would propose:
- Eliminate state and local Firearm Purchasing Permits.
- Establish a National Firearm Purchasing Permit (I see that torch you’re lighting, just hold on!).
- Eliminate the NICS program! If we all have a license showing we already went through a background check then the NICS program serves absolutely no purpose. The card can be used to show that you are not a prohibited possessor to both personal sellers and FFL holding dealers.
- Add an optional “Concealed/Open Carry” certification stamp to the Permit, which will be recognized in all 50 states. Now we don’t have to worry about becoming Felons because that state we don’t live in passed that law we don’t know about, and we had to drive through there to get to our real destination.
- Eliminate and prohibit gun registries on the national, state and local level. Now, as private sellers, we legally have to see a Purchase Permit before we sell our firearm to someone, so we know they aren’t a prohibited possessor. We also know that law abiding gun owners in fact bend over backwards to obey the law, because if you’re anything like me, losing your gun rights falls into your list of Top 3 Fears (right next to Nancy Pelosi getting superpowers). This means that, for an overwhelming majority of gun transactions (probably in the neighborhood of 99%), guns are either being sold between two law abiding gun owners (or an FFL dealer) or two non-law-abiding criminals, who won’t check for a Purchase Permit, and who would absolutely never register the gun in the first place. We have essentially eliminated the possibility of a law abiding citizen unknowingly selling a gun to a prohibited possessor, which, according to gun grabbers, is the primary reason for a registry. Politicians are now faced with the fact that the ONLY reason for a gun registry is for tracking and confiscating of firearms from law-abiding citizens, and their support of a registry will be akin to committing political Seppuku.
- Set a reasonable [one time] cost associated with the Permit and the Carry Stamp ($30-$50), with subsequent price increases pegged to the Consumer Price Index. This prevents politicians from utilizing the Permit to inflate the price of the Permit to such a point as to render the 2nd Amendment worthless.
- Mandate that the Permit will be treated as “Shall Issue” rather than “May Issue.” At no time shall a citizen be asked for “proof of need” to purchase or carry a firearm in order to receive the Permit or Carry Stamp (see Heller v D.C.). If they aren’t a violent felon/prohibited possessor, their application is approved.
- Establish a reasonable time limit on approvals (e.g. no longer than 4 weeks) [with real enforceable penalties for violations].
- Cement into the language of the legislation that this permit is for the purchase of a firearm and is not required for the gifting, inheritance or ownership of a firearm.
Now, I feel that this is a pretty fair compromise. The Left accomplishes their (supposed) end goals of purchase permits AND universal background checks. We as gun owners get to eliminate a number of ridiculous state and local gun registries, have a national Concealed Carry license, and eliminate the costly and burdensome NICS program.
I’m sure there are still a number of you that are saying to yourselves “Screw it, let’s burn this traitor at the stake.” That’s fine if you don’t agree with my proposal (please don’t light me on fire though). We all have different priorities when it comes to our gun rights, and if the things I would like to accomplish in my example are of little to no concern for you individually, or you don’t think the trade-offs are worth it, then that’s fine.
What I’m trying to establish here isn’t this particular set of legislative goals, I’m using it as an example. What I’m saying is that, if we, as a gun-ownership community, are going to be accused of not compromising, then we need to be offered actual compromises, not strong-armed ultimatums, and in turn we need to offer our own.
While it’s worked decently for us over the last decade, I don’t think our proverbial “line in the sand” will last forever. If, however, we stop simply butting heads over the same issues time and time again, we might be able to come to the negotiating table and work out pieces of legislation that both sides are happy about.
A&A Ammunition, CEO
Andrew Scott is the Founder and CEO of A&A Ammunition, an ammunition manufacturing and sales company located in Tucson, AZ that specializes in reloading high quality training ammo. He is also a Veteran currently serving in the Arizona Air National Guard, and has previously worked in numerous industries ranging from food prep to stock trading.
For more of his writings, visit the A&A Ammunition website at www.TrainHardAmmo.com/blog