Gun Control Negotiations & the Lack of Compromise Claim

Second Amendment, No Compromise, No Retreat
Second Amendment, No Compromise, No Retreat
A&A Ammunition
A&A Ammunition

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.

Shells and Sand
We’ve drawn the line in the sand. We wont give up another inch.

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.

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.

Second Amendment Gun Permit
Second Amendment Gun Permit

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.

Sincerely,
Andrew Scott
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

47
Leave a Reply

Please Login to comment
25 Comment threads
22 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
33 Comment authors
Wild BillDavidEdbob frankenbiker novakMichael Ring Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
Notify of
Wild Bill
Guest
Wild Bill

Ok, fellow non-compromisers, time to get out your checkbooks.

David
Guest
David

Though some of what is stated might have merit it does one thing that I surely don’t want to see, put more power into the hands of the federal gov’t, and this is something none of us wants to see. Not only do they have too much power already but they don’t do a damned thing anymore either. We have a do nothing congress and senate that don’t work towards the betterment of our country, they work towards the betterment of themselves only. What we need is a return to what the meaning of the 2A, and for the federal… Read more »

Ed
Guest
Ed

“…Shall not be infringed.” All “laws” either have no effect or they infringe. No “law” creates or allows options that weren’t present prior to the “law”. Further, the US Constitution prohibits the creation of any privileged class, which is the exact result when some folks get licenses and/or permits. Free men do not pay for the “privilege” of exercising their freedom. Period. Compromise? Some would consider it a huge compromise to even suffer the fools that insist on trying to rule over ostensibly free persons. Back once upon a time in America, such folk were chastised, run off, or worse,… Read more »

bob frankenbiker novak
Guest
bob frankenbiker novak

Never compromise your standards, never compromise your rights, and never compromise when it comes to the elections. Look what all the above have gotten us. An affirmative action POS POTUS, gun restrictions, laws, and trade deals made in back rooms of the white mosque, and a congress that no longer works for us, but works for reelections instead.

John Half
Guest
John Half

As Ayn Rand pointed out, there is no compromise possible between food and poison.

James Evans
Guest
James Evans

Absolutely never compromise our natural right to self defense for any “reason” whatsoever anytime anywhere. End of discussion.

William
Guest
William

“Negotiating” with the second amendment at stake is a sure way to get it gone quicker than expected. Give ’em an inch, they’ll take it all, eventually. The article actually offers to educate us to that fact. My conscious couldn’t handle the guilt of even considering “offering” away ANY minuscule piece of the second amendment as a peace offering to a class of folks that want to rape the given rights out from under us.

Why don’t you try negotiating with the devil? You’d probably end up with about the same results!

Joel
Guest
Joel

Amen William!

Ray Scott
Guest
Ray Scott

We should hold the position that all able adults shall take firarms training as mandatory preparation for the exercise of Second Amendment rights. Since it is an inalienable right to keep and beat arms, unlike the privilege of driving a car, safety through competency should be instituted. From that position we can “negotiate” who maybe exempted, felonpacificists, et all. To strip away the mystic, emphasize assembly, disassembly ad cleaning. “

Martin
Guest
Martin

Andrew, The majority of your ideas have merit, but I agree with the folks who say that the central government has usurped enough power anyway. The Second Amendment should be your Right to own and carry a firearm. The idea that a driver’s license should be marked to show whether your are in a prohibited category is a good idea. Right now, you can get a Restricted License if you surpass a number of DUIs and, you know, the bad guys aren’t going to pay any attention to the laws anyway. This is a good discussion to have going on… Read more »

Dan Koch
Guest
Dan Koch

No compromise stand on the 2nd amendment.

COL Jr
Guest
COL Jr

you’re an IDIOT!!! the gun control conversation WAS settled in 1776. END OF DISCUSSION!!!
compromise with today’s demoCRAPS is LOSING! Stop with all your “feel good” crap!!!

JohnC
Guest
JohnC

Dear Col. You are an idiot.

JohnnyBulletSeed
Guest
JohnnyBulletSeed

A Constitutional right is merely the verbalization of a natural right (like breathing air) which requires no “permit”. Owning arms, whether knives, guns, spears or whatever, is a natural right and requires no permit. Friend, I see no room for compromise here. There are no distinctions, no shades of grey. It’s pretty black and white. We have the natural (read beyond the scope of government) right to own arms. End of discussion.

JimP
Guest
JimP

So you want us to compromise our gun rights? Who do you think you are? Once we have “compromised” our gun rights are lost forever. NEVER COMPROMISE. Let the communists on the left give up their constant bellow to take our weapons away…..never compromise…..never!

What would happen to the Bill of Rights if the 2d Amendment is compromised? Gone just like the wind.

Vanns40
Guest
Vanns40

Your entire proposal fails on one point: You propose a permit for what is, arguably, an inherent right and that is why it should be rejected.

Spice54
Guest
Spice54

Change the word from ‘purchase permit’ to ‘rape’ or ‘beating’ and then tell me that ‘compromise’ works. Because you are only talking compromise, not negotiation, when the only things ‘they’ give up are things they have already done to us. Making them promise not to beat you if they get to rape your daughter this ONE time…. I get that as a person in the firearms industry, you get tired of the constant bickering. Remember what the LACK of talk will lead to – December 20, 1860, South Carolina.

JohnnyBulletSeed
Guest
JohnnyBulletSeed

That’s the point exactly. There is nothing to compromise. Besides, it’s not the law-abiding who commit the horrendous acts of violence, is it? It’s the CRIMINALS who commit crimes, and CRIMINALS don’t follow laws. That’s why we call them criminals. All the laws in the world won’t prevent someone from disobeying them. There is already a law against murder, is there not? Has that stopped murders from occurring? No.

hippybiker
Guest
hippybiker

I remember the 60s and how the NRA compromises with the anti gun scum. The result(thanks to the NRA and traitor Senator Thomas Dodd)we got The GCA of 68. That would be almost word for word, the NAZI weapons control act of 1938. Let that sink in! The Soap Box, the Ballot Box and the Jury Box have nor worked. It is close to time for the Cartridge Box and the Pine Box. Screw compromise!!!

JohnC
Guest
JohnC

Dear Hippie Biker, I too remember the sixties and I own several guns. It is ridiculous attitudes and comments like yours’ that hurt the gun owners’ cause. So it is time to grow up and act like a reasonable person or just shut up.

Ed
Guest
Ed

Yep. Thomas Jefferson fully expected there to be a revolt in this country about every 20 years or so. Henry Ford said that if the average American understood finance there would be a revolution by morning. The point is that a good revolt is sort of like a forest fire- it clears out a lot of dead wood and makes room for a lot of new growth…

Paul Hampton
Guest
Paul Hampton

While differing state gun laws may be a PITA, giving a central government more power is not the answer. Washington has perverted the Constitution enough. The Constitution was written such that the States held the majority of the power. Over the years the Federal Government has been taking more and more of the responsibilities that should be the States. The only way to get back to the vision of our Founding Fathers is for the people to oppose laws that allow the Federal Government to ursurp the power of the States.

Gene Ralno
Guest
Gene Ralno

Historically, only an infinitesimal number of firearms have been transferred between individuals and most have been part of estates passed from parents to their children. In view of leftist hysteria, I doubt that anyone does it anymore. I suspect individuals keep their firearms forever, allowing their personal arsenals to grow with old but serviceable relics. That leaves Federal Firearms Licensees who already are required to acquire background checks. Asking oneself what democrats gain by requiring permits leads to only one conclusion. It’s not the permit. It’s the registry. Clearly, leftist democrats hope for a registry to track lawful purchasers because… Read more »

Andrew Scott
Guest
Andrew Scott

Hi Gene, thanks for commenting. I agree that a registry is the first a primary tool used by an oppressive government to disarm the populous, which is why I’d like to find a way to preempt the future attempts at a national registry (we all know they’re trying) and also dismantle current state and local registries.

Andrew Scott
Guest
Andrew Scott

Also, I’ve never seen any numbers regarding how much of the gun market is made up by the secondary market. Would you happen to have any links? I’d be really interested in checking it out!

TRUTH BE TOLD
Guest
TRUTH BE TOLD

And my rights come by Jesus Not the government…… he doesn’t compromised.

TRUTH BE TOLD
Guest
TRUTH BE TOLD

So mr andrews first says they wont stop until they have your guns and then he ends with: 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 with. so you suggest that since they wont ever stop (butt heads) we should just give in cause were gonna loose the fight so might as… Read more »

Andrew Scott
Guest
Andrew Scott

Works fantastic as a matter of fact! Once again, I don’t mind at all if you disagree with that proposal, but as we saw with the Assault Weapons Ban, our hard line stance only works so long as pro-gun representatives have enough control in Congress or the White House. We’re playing prevent defense, just trying to stop the other side from gaining ground, which I feel is a losing strategy long term. With proper negotiating we can reclaim rights that have been taken from us.

Westin
Guest
Westin

“We’re playing prevent defense, just trying to stop the other side from gaining ground” As quoted from the very coaches (the most successful ones) who specifically avoid using the prevent defense: The only thing the prevent defense prevents .. is you from winning. A clever political enemy will always try to gain as many ‘concessions’ as possible to erode and attrit their opponent. If they try 100 things and we rebuff 99 of them, they still have gained something they wanted .. and we have lost it. And then they just try it all again. And again. And again. If… Read more »

TRUTH BE TOLD
Guest
TRUTH BE TOLD

Sounds like sh!t to me…… Im guessin our two lines in the sand are not the same…..

Dr. Strangelove
Guest
Dr. Strangelove

Study history. Tyranny is always implemented through (among other things) gun control.

Andrew Scott
Guest
Andrew Scott

Hi Dr. Strangelove. I love history, and you’re absolutely correct that any aspiring tyrant knows that the first order of business is to disarm the people. This is why I want to make it a primary goal to remove gun registries enacted at the state and local level, while preventing the possibility of a national registry. To me, that’s worth carrying around another piece of plastic in my wallet, but I understand that lots of people feel differently. I’m just trying to open up the conversation and see what opportunities we can find to prevent and remove gun control measures… Read more »

Joel
Guest
Joel

We have that protection here in Vermont. Why not take your apparent “legislative energy” to the state level and enact a “sportsmen bill of rights” for each state, as Vermont has. It has served us well and used to stop the Bloomberg’s, etc. from exploiting the 2nd amendment. We also have the 16th article to the Vt State Constitution that is pretty cut and dry. My point is there is no quilted patch work of local laws for the gun owner to have to study and/or memorize. I would have to agree FelixD on this one and urge to not… Read more »

Terry
Guest
Terry

I live in the People’s Republic of California, the law that applies in Vermont is not likely to EVER see the light of day in this state, and on top of all of that, this state is full of immigrants, legal and illegal, that are in favor of various gun control proposals that pop up here all the time. We have state level politicians like Kevin DeLong that never met a gun control law that he didn’t like, and who proposed a large number of those that have passed in this state. So, although I certainly like your states gun… Read more »

Joel
Guest
Joel

Furthermore, isn’t what you are proposing a form of registration? wwether a piece of plastic in your wallet or even a CCW, it is a form of listing/registration in my opinion. Registration is what the statist wants.

TonysTake
Guest
TonysTake

The Second Amendment isn’t simply a line is the sand. It is etched on diamonds, written across the face of the sun and enshrined in our Constitution. It is a law of Nature and it is as undeniable as gravity.

Paul Hampton
Guest
Paul Hampton

While differing gun laws between states is a pita, giving a central government more power is not the answer. Washington has perverted the Constitution enough already. According to the Constitution the States are supposed to hold most of the power with the Federal Government having very limited power and only those granted to it by the States. The only way back to the vision of our Founding Fathers is for The States to stop giving up their power to the Federal Government.

Andrew Scott
Guest
Andrew Scott

Hi Paul, thanks for the comment. I agree that the Federal Government has been illegally usurping a number of powers that should reside with the state, but when I see states like New Jersey turn members of our community into felons left and right, I have to start to look for a solution. What would you suggest?

Paul Hampton
Guest
Paul Hampton

There is no one size fits all solution. One part of me thinks that the States could get together and hash out some sort of agreement to be lenient on citizens who inadvertently violate a states gun law. Maybe have a process whereby a person could plead their case to their local States Attorney who would then negotiate a deal with the States Attorney in the jurisdiction where the offence occurred. Yes I realize that the possibility of this actually working is slim and none, but hope springs eternal. Ultimately it is up to the responsible gun owner to know… Read more »

Dr Dave
Guest
Dr Dave

I agree with you the Fed has WAY to much power as it is over everything. The originators of these United States intended the government to be individual states running things with the Fed taking control over things like International Relations and the like. I am sorry some states are nonsensical but we shouldn’t be giving more control to the Fed as an exchange to get around them (besides the fact that they simply won’t agree to the legislation) The solution to fixing the few states that are outliers is simple re-elect officials who represent a different agenda and if… Read more »

TS Atomic
Guest
TS Atomic

Instead of a national permit, just add another code to your drivers license/state issued photo ID that indicates you are not a violent felon/prohibited possessor. IT could be used for a variety of things, one of which is the transfer/sale/CCW on a national scale. GA already has the federal “gold star” from the “Real-ID” act. Just add another code of “GG” for “Good-Guy” (or whatever) next to the code for corrective lenses or commercial truck privileges. In exchange for that, no more NICS and full repeal of NFA and GCA. Fully legalized casual transfer & sale of SBR/SBS, Suppressors and… Read more »

Andrew Scott
Guest
Andrew Scott

Thanks for the comment, I think that would make such a program much better, cheaper and effective! Thanks!

Michael Ring
Guest
Michael Ring

I like TS’s idea but we’d need some sort on national clearing house for felons for something like this to work where you could take a state ID across state lines and have the ID accepted. A plus of the concept is you could sell it as a program outside of the gun community such as being safe to work kids or in high dollar retail or financial fields.

But in the end, I think we all know the left really just wants the guns and isn’t interested in crime.

JD
Guest
JD

The felon comment again. When you get out of jail you should get your horse, hat and gun back.

Michael Ring
Guest
Michael Ring

Once they finish swinging from the gallows, I’ve got no problem with that.

FelixD
Guest
FelixD

Civil rights do not require permits. Civil rights do not require fees to be paid to utilize those rights. Civil rights do not require government permission to exercise those rights. Compromise on any civil right allows the central government room to change the perception of the depth of the right. If government can change the perception of the 2nd Amendment what can it do to the 4th or the 1st or any other right? Butting heads is what has kept, and even advanced, our civil rights. I, for one, do not wish to negotiate with government for what we already… Read more »

Eric
Guest
Eric

Giving in to any more gun control is losing.
Just as income tax started out as 1% of the top 10% earners to pay for WW1 , perverted into destroying the middle class to let poor people live like middleclass. They are not my kids , not my problem yet I pay more in tax then someone with kids. Those with kids are a bigger tax burden they should foot the bill not me.
Compromise is losing.