Background Check and Three-Day Waiting Period

[GRV]

Taken from PatMac thread: https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?26345-Pat-Mac-on-Comedy-Central

Hypothetical law: universal background checks and three-day waiting periods are added, NFA is repealed, national carry reciprocity added.

Do you make efforts to support it and hope it passes?


Strictly a legislative question; doesn't include whether you'd try to judicially challenge anything latter.

[spinmove_]

In hypothetical land? Maybe. Does it do anything to magazine restrictions and Kalifornia's pistol roster? What about featureless rifles?


Sent from mah smertfone using tapathingy

[punkey71]

Taken from PatMac thread: https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?26345-Pat-Mac-on-Comedy-Central

Hypothetical law: universal background checks and three-day waiting periods are added, NFA is repealed, national carry reciprocity added.

Do you make efforts to support it and hope it passes?


Strictly a legislative question; doesn't include whether you'd try to judicially challenge anything latter.

Hypothetical outcome: bad people are still bad. Guns get stolen, lost, etc and used to kill innocent people. Scum bag anti-gun politicians wait for the next inevitable swing in power and decide guns are bad and they want them. All of them. They know who has them and EXACTLY what you have.

You have 30 days to comply with the firearms surrender order.

After that you're a felon.

UBC aren't an End. They're a Means.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[TAZ]

Would not support as is listed.

UBC is nebulous are we talking about record less UBC, 30 record UBC or full bore registration.

Waiting period - why support a solution in search of a problem.

NFA repeal - would be nice, but it impacts a niche of the firearm community. Even if repealed the participation would be low just due to costs. Why handicap all gun purchasers for the benefit of a niche?

National Reciprocity- also a nice thing, but what % of the firearms community carries a gun and then carries while traveling AND can't do so today with the state negotiated reciprocity agreements. Why trade for something you already have?

Also why would you support something you may not get eliminated in a legal challenge. Court cases are a crap shoot. If something sucks, supporting it with the hope you might change it later is not a good strategy.

[voodoo_man]

What should it be?

Absolutely zero wait on anything at all, you walk in present a current state DL or valid passport and walk out with the firearm after a money transaction.

What is the compromise?

Background checks.

However, I'd like to point out that I completely support state sovereignty and allowing members of a community to vote for their personal beliefs, but only for their respective communities. If some states want to have waiting periods and whatnot then fine that's their right as citizens of that state to have those in their ability to vote for.

It should not, however turn into a weird federal law or mandate, that's bullshit. As what applies for a hippy in CA shouldn't apply for a farmer in Idaho.

I also believe a compromise which would be supported by the majority is that if you go and get your CCW, and have a valid CCW which can be presented at an FFL and allow the person to skip any other restrictions, like background checks or waiting periods.

There's a lot that we are giving up and not really getting much in return, I am not a fan of this in any measure. If we do universal background checks regardless of CCW or whatnot then we should be able to possess any firearm in any configuration (especially suppressors). Otherwise it would not be worth the trade-off.

[Robinson]

What should it be?

Absolutely zero wait on anything at all, you walk in present a current state DL or valid passport and walk out with the firearm after a money transaction.

What is the compromise?

Background checks.

However, I'd like to point out that I completely support state sovereignty and allowing members of a community to vote for their personal beliefs, but only for their respective communities. If some states want to have waiting periods and whatnot then fine that's their right as citizens of that state to have those in their ability to vote for.

It should not, however turn into a weird federal law or mandate, that's bullshit. As what applies for a hippy in CA shouldn't apply for a farmer in Idaho.

I also believe a compromise which would be supported by the majority is that if you go and get your CCW, and have a valid CCW which can be presented at an FFL and allow the person to skip any other restrictions, like background checks or waiting periods.

There's a lot that we are giving up and not really getting much in return, I am not a fan of this in any measure. If we do universal background checks regardless of CCW or whatnot then we should be able to possess any firearm in any configuration (especially suppressors). Otherwise it would not be worth the trade-off.

So maybe you can clarify your opinion a little further. You believe background checks and waiting periods are an infringement of the 2nd Amendment (or so you indicated in a different thread), but you think citizens should be able to enact those measures at the local level via democratic process? Aside from the pros and cons of those measures, is that not a contradiction? If a law is unconstitutional then a local government should not be able to enact it.

[voodoo_man]

So maybe you can clarify your opinion a little further. You believe background checks and waiting periods are an infringement of the 2nd Amendment (or so you indicated in a different thread), but you think citizens should be able to enact those measures at the local level via democratic process? Aside from the pros and cons of those measures, is that not a contradiction? If a law is unconstitutional then a local government should not be able to enact it.

Who am I to tell someone in a different state, governed by people with different opinions elected by people with different definitions of what they want in their community how to live?

As long as on the federal level there is no such restrictions, what happens in small communities in various states is upto those people. State sovereignty is a real thing which I believe in. If you want to live in a state which follows your personal beliefs great, you are free to do it. If you want to live in a state which has no such restrictions and adopts the federal standard of freedom (no background no waiting periods) so be it.

As I stated, the compromise would be as I pointed out, that would be the most fair trade-off in my opinion.

Edit - just to add this based on the hypothetical law poll. Not current law.

[JDM]

Is this even a question?

New manufacture machine guns and a concealed gun in Hawaiifornia... for a three day waiting period?

I wish I could vote yes 1000 times.

[Robinson]

Who am I to tell someone in a different state, governed by people with different opinions elected by people with different definitions of what they want in their community how to live?

As long as on the federal level there is no such restrictions, what happens in small communities in various states is upto those people. State sovereignty is a real thing which I believe in. If you want to live in a state which follows your personal beliefs great, you are free to do it. If you want to live in a state which has no such restrictions and adopts the federal standard of freedom (no background no waiting periods) so be it.

As I stated, the compromise would be as I pointed out, that would be the most fair trade-off in my opinion.

Edit - just to add this based on the hypothetical law poll. Not current law.

So, for example, you are okay with New Jersey gun laws being the way they are because they were put in place at the local level. The fact that those laws place severe restrictions on a Constitutionally protected right is secondary to the will of the NJ state government. So it would follow that you would be okay with a state enacting severe restrictions on free speech and freedom of religion as well, as long as it is okay with a majority of citizens living there.

[Bart Carter]

...However, I'd like to point out that I completely support state sovereignty and allowing members of a community to vote for their personal beliefs, but only for their respective communities. If some states want to have waiting periods and whatnot then fine that's their right as citizens of that state to have those in their ability to vote for...
This amounts to rule by majority. That is why we are a republic with constitutional rights.



...It should not, however turn into a weird federal law or mandate, that's bullshit. As what applies for a hippy in CA shouldn't apply for a farmer in Idaho...
It should if the law is to uphold constitutional rights. Especially if the majority decides that it has the right to take those rights away.

[voodoo_man]

Let's reel it back a bit.

No state can enact clear violations of the Constitution. That is not up for debate.

As we have already seen, however, NYC, CA and NJ do whatever they want with regards to 2A. This is again not up for debate as it's fact.

Their citizens voted for it and it is their right to do so. Hypothetically, if those same citizens voted for restrictions on 1A, would a politician elected to do so be opposed in those communities for attempting it? No. He would in large though and should be as the Constitution should be able to supercede any such local measures. We don't want little iran popping up all the place just like we don't want little Moscow.

Regardless of what we are talking about, state sovereignty is a real thing which should be respected.

[HCM]

This amounts to rule by majority. That is why we are a republic with constitutional rights.



It should if the law is to uphold constitutional rights. Especially if the majority decides that it has the right to take those rights away.

Exactly this. State and local laws must comport with the US constitution. The Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution (Article VI, Clause 2) establishes that the Constitution, federal laws made pursuant to it, and treaties made under its authority, constitute the supreme law of the land.

Whatever is not specified in the U.S. Constitution is then left to the states.

[critter]

Let's reel it back a bit.

No state can enact clear violations of the Constitution. That is not up for debate.
...

Regardless of what we are talking about, state sovereignty is a real thing which should be respected.

States' Rights and Sovereignty applies to anything not specifically addressed in the U.S. Constitution (specific authority granted to federal branches, bill of rights). Firearm restrictions are specifically addressed with 'shall not be infringed'. The problem is that state governments have already usurped constitutional authority and have slippery sloped the shit we see in the commie states. They should have been dragged out and hanged on the steps of their respective capitols upon first attempt. :cool:

Simply put, states do not have the Constitutional authority to violate the Bill of Rights.

ETA: The way it should be obviously isn't the way it is.

[voodoo_man]

States' Rights and Sovereignty applies to anything not specifically addressed in the U.S. Constitution (specific authority granted to federal branches, bill of rights). Firearm restrictions are specifically addressed with 'shall not be infringed'. The problem is that state governments have already usurped constitutional authority and have slippery sloped the shit we see in the commie states. They should have been dragged out and hanged on the steps of their respective capitols upon first attempt. :cool:

Simply put, states do not have the Constitutional authority to violate the Bill of Rights.

ETA: The way it should be obviously isn't the way it is.

Right so we are in agreement, as that's what I said.

[Slalom.45]

"Do nothing of which there is no use."

I am tired of adding laws upon laws that make no difference in the end.

[GardoneVT]

An unequivocal no.

Bad guys,jagoffs and convicted felons don't buy guns from FFLs. It would be like stopping street sales of illegal weed by making medical marijuana firms wait three days before delivering the bud.

[Robinson]

Okay so perhaps we are not discussing whether or not states have the authority to override the Constitution, but rather what should be considered a violation of the 2nd Amendment by a state. For example, even the late Justice Scalia argued that while states cannot prohibit the right to both keep and bear arms, a state may put restrictions on how a weapon may be carried (e.g. open vs. concealed).

So VDM in your mind where should the line be drawn re: a state's right to further restrict the provisions of the 2nd Amendment? In another recent post you stated something to the effect of "shall not be infringed means shall not be infringed".

[WobblyPossum]

I'd support this if the details were ironed out to my liking:
1. Universal background checks must come without any kind of registration at all. No records are generated or kept. This would require changing the record keeping requirements regarding 4473s.
2. Private parties will have access to the NICS system so you wouldn't have to go to an FFL in order to have the background check done.
3. The background check would only apply to transfers of ownership such as a sale or trade. Handing a buddy a gun at the range or lending a firearm short term, for example, would not trigger the background check requirement.
3. Waiting period no more than 24 hours. (That's as low of an arbitrary number I can imagine the other side agreeing to)
4. NFA repealed completely along with Hughes Amendment. You want a newly manufactured MP5SD? Same NICS check as a handgun, wait your 24 hours, pick it up at the store. No added fees. No added scrutiny.
5. CCW reciprocity would have provisions to cover constitutional carry states. Ex: a drivers license from Vermont, Alaska, etc is enough to carry in NYC.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[voodoo_man]

Okay so perhaps we are not discussing whether or not states have the authority to override the Constitution, but rather what should be considered a violation of the 2nd Amendment by a state. For example, even the late Justice Scalia argued that while states cannot prohibit the right to both keep and bear arms, a state may put restrictions on how a weapon may be carried (e.g. open vs. concealed).

So VDM in your mind where should the line be drawn re: a state's right to further restrict the provisions of the 2nd Amendment? In another recent post you stated something to the effect of "shall not be infringed means shall not be infringed".

There is no line. My statement which you quoted is my stance.

But is that what is currently occurring? No. So it would be foolish to be rigid when the playing field isnt. Is the goal to have no infringements? Completely, but there is clearly an opposition to our stance so what should we do? Bang our heads against a wall while yelling shall not be infringed or are we willing to make small compromises to gain a broader spectrum of rights?

Background checks for national reciprocity and carry? I'd do that. Three day wait period on some items but repeal of nfa? That's pretty damn good.

Because the way it's going now there is a lot of restriction and we get nothing, especially obviously in left states.

[LOKNLOD]

The only way to make UBCs work is to eliminate private sales.

If you eliminate private sales, you have to know who has guns or you won't know they're being sold.

To do that, you have to register all weapons.

Similar with waiting periods - if you can buy a gun from an individual, you can bypass the waiting period (or at least they have no way to enforce it). And again to keep private sales from happening freely you have to have the items registered.

[Robinson]

There is no line. My statement which you quoted is my stance.

Okay I can accept that that is your stance. I wasn't quite able to square that stance with your claim that governments/citizens in local communities should be able to enact restrictions if that's really what they want. It seemed to be a contradiction. I appreciate this civil discourse.

[voodoo_man]

Okay I can accept that that is your stance. I wasn't quite able to square that stance with your claim that governments/citizens in local communities should be able to enact restrictions if that's really what they want. It seemed to be a contradiction. I appreciate this civil discourse.

It is only a contradiction if the context of what I posted was disregarded. We are talking about a hypothetical law, right? That is what the OP is about, correct?

[Robinson]

It is only a contradiction if the context of what I posted was disregarded. We are talking about a hypothetical law, right? That is what the OP is about, correct?

Your earlier comment:


However, I'd like to point out that I completely support state sovereignty and allowing members of a community to vote for their personal beliefs, but only for their respective communities. If some states want to have waiting periods and whatnot then fine that's their right as citizens of that state to have those in their ability to vote for.

That seems to be a pretty broad statement of your position, and was not qualified with "unless the measure being voted on contradicts the U.S. Constitution". But based on our further discussion, the question is whether or not a provision should be considered unconstitutional. If so, then state sovereignty does not apply, hypothetical or not. Correct?

[Poconnor]

The devil is in the details. I believe gun laws should be simple and universal. The idea that I become a felon by crossing a state line is repugnant to me. There should never be a registration list. I have long thought that the "list" should be a prohibited person list. Like the no fly list- a no buy list. Everyone else is allowed but these knuckle heads. Of course I act like everyone already owns a gun and I am often genuinely surprised to learn a friend doesn't own one. As in why not? And what's wrong with you? Like the 40 year old virgin, or an adult without a drivers license

[TAZ]

I'd support a UBC law if it was truly a universal background check.

Anyone can Input name, DOB, address as detailed as the person is willing to supply. You get back a confirmation number and print out stating that at the time of the check or don ABC is deemed to be a law abiding person... blah, blah, blah. Whether I've run the UBC cause im looking for a babysitter for my daughter or cause I want to sell them a nuke is irrelevant. That is a UNIVERSAL check.

I could support that.

[voodoo_man]

Your earlier comment:

That seems to be a pretty broad statement of your position, and was not qualified with "unless the measure being voted on contradicts the U.S. Constitution". But based on our further discussion, the question is whether or not a provision should be considered unconstitutional. If so, then state sovereignty does not apply, hypothetical or not. Correct?

When one statement taken without the context of the entire conversation (usually quoted previously) then yeah it can completely be seen this way.

However, is this not current reality in some states - waiting periods. How else do you explain one state having this another not other than state sovereignty?

We can either give states the ability to choose certain things voted upon by their citizens through their politicians or we will eventually end up with laws which have all encompassing coverage set forth by the federal system (scotus/etc). I would much rather have the current system which allows a broad, generalized law from the federal level which is then converted in each respective states based on their citizens votes. That is what happens currently anyway, this isn't hypothetical, this is what is currently happening. If it was the other way around we would all have three day wait periods and/or marijuana would be legalized everywhere, instead it's based on state sovereignty.

[Sensei]

That seems to be a pretty broad statement of your position, and was not qualified with "unless the measure being voted on contradicts the U.S. Constitution". But based on our further discussion, the question is whether or not a provision should be considered unconstitutional. If so, then state sovereignty does not apply, hypothetical or not. Correct?

It is an interesting factoid that state and local ordinances restricting firearms were completely fine with all of the Framers since the Bill of Rights was conceived as only a check on the Federal Government. It was not until the SCOTUS started to use the 14th Amendment's Due Process Clause to selectively incorporate some (but not other) aspects of the BOR as applicable to state and local governments that we started to debate the Constitutionality of local gun laws.

[HCM]

The devil is in the details. I believe gun laws should be simple and universal. The idea that I become a felon by crossing a state line is repugnant to me. There should never be a registration list. I have long thought that the "list" should be a prohibited person list. Like the no fly list- a no buy list. Everyone else is allowed but these knuckle heads. Of course I act like everyone already owns a gun and I am often genuinely surprised to learn a friend doesn't own one. As in why not? And what's wrong with you? Like the 40 year old virgin, or an adult without a drivers license

One of those details is the trend of certain states making an ever increasing list of misdemeanors disqualifying for firearms ownership.

Another is the same States broadening the number of crimes designated as "felonies" to the point of absurdity.

Given firearms rights are enumerated in the US constition they should be universal and subject to the "full faith and credit" clause the way drivers licenses are.

[Robinson]

It is an interesting factoid that state and local ordinances restricting firearms were completely fine with all of the Framers since the Bill of Rights was conceived as only a check on the Federal Government. It was not until the SCOTUS started to use the 14th Amendment's Due Process Clause to selectively incorporate some (but not other) aspects of the BOR as applicable to state and local governments that we started to debate the Constitutionality of local gun laws.

On the other hand, the 2nd Amendment (its necessity as well as its language) was heavily influenced by the state bills of rights and amendments suggested by the state conventions.

[ReverendMeat]

No. Waiting periods are asinine, UBCs are either de facto registration or completely unenforceable. It's not worth it for easier access to cool toys or being able to carry in states I would prefer avoiding regardless.

[Jim Watson]

How about a background check and waiting period for only your first purchase of a firearm? (Mine not long after I turned 21.)
After that, if you want to commit a crime, you are already armed and the best paperwork in the world cannot stop you.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

I would like the control of antigun states to be broken in order to support the good people who live there. Outside of the megacities and their latte elites, the countryside supports gun rights. That is true in NY and CA. An up to date NICS is OK with me but no waiting periods. I disagree with the analysis of state rights on this issue. States tend to vary between laws that enhance liberties or control them. At least, we can prevent the latter from happening to those determined to be unconstitutional. That gun rights are being debated as now incorporated and state restrictions can be broke - fine with me.

But don't worry - no federal progun legislation will ever come out of the current mess in DC. Nor will SCOTUS light a burning bush on its steps and 5 justices will descend carrying stone tablets getting rid of the NFA and state AWBs. Might as well debate Superman vs. the Hulk.

Why not make a deal that the GOP shuts up about sex and reproduction and the Democrats shut up about Guns? That is more useful than getting full autos to the neck beards at the range. Our local range bans NFA anyway. We were discussing one match where some dude had a full auto and used it to fire bursts. The owner descended like the wrath of God and that was enough of that.

[UNK]

"First and foremost, it says shall not be infringed, not shall be slightly infringed for only three days. Any restriction, any rule or law, which is not identically applied to other amendments or rights is an infringement and has no place in free American culture." VoodooMan

[Tamara]

The right way to do the "instant background" thing would be to put a "NOT ALLOWED TO OWN GUNS" disclaimer on people's DL/ID/passport. I mean, it's a civil right, so the default should be "OKEY DOKEY" amirite?

Show me an ID without that disclaimer, and you're good to go in all 50 states.

I'd trade that for moving suppressors to Title I, repealing the Hughes Amendment, and interstate handgun sales. Hell, I might throw in a 3-day wait on sales from licensees for that package deal.

[olstyn]

Why not make a deal that the GOP shuts up about sex and reproduction and the Democrats shut up about Guns?

Yes, please, a million times this. I could hate both major political parties a LOT less if they'd adjust their stances thus.

[BWT]

If you wanted to get a gun, you can with usurping the law.

Background checks and waiting periods aren't a deterrent in my mind.

Also, it's a right; I don't get why it's negotiable like which restaurant we're going to on a weeknight with friends.

I have a world of respect for Pat Mac, but we just simply disagree on this.

God Bless,

Brandon

[nalesq]

I can comprehend (though I do not agree with) the rationale for some kind of a waiting period to buy your first gun. But once you have one gun, what is the point of a waiting period for subsequent guns?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Drang]

No state can enact clear violations of the Constitution. That is not up for debate.
Tried to check a gun in at JFK or LaGuardia or Newark?

[MistWolf]

Removing restrictions at the federal level and allowing for state's rights would limit the cancer to smaller areas. States should be allowed to pass laws concerning issues that are unique to that state. But any law passed need to be constitutional. That's what the courts are for, to test the constitutionality of laws. That means the people of the state need to be vigilant about what laws are passed. In recognizing the state's right to deal with their own issues, we have to recognize those rights are are limited. For example, the state does not have the right to pass laws that allows the re-institution of slavery. Driver's licenses and marriage certificates must be recognized by all states.

No state has the power to legalize marijuana. Anyone using marijuana is denied the possession of firearms because marijuana is an illegal controlled substance by federal law. In the state of Washington, anyone with a medical marijuana card must be denied the purchase of a firearm.

I would not agree to universal background checks because to be universal background checks, they would have to be universally applied to every transaction, not just firearm purchases. People who purchase computers would have to be subjected a UBC to check for a history of abuse, bullying, pedophilia and other heinous behaviors. People who purchase cars would have to subjected a UBC to check for a history of driving under the influence, road rage and other unsafe habits. People with a history of domestic violence would be denied the purchase of garden tools because they might use them to bury the bodies of their victims. The above sound ridiculous because they are. It's ridiculous all the way to requiring a UBC for all firearms purchases, retail and private.

For the sake of convenience, it's tempting to put in place a system that only requires us to pass a background check once for the purchases of firearms. But that means they have to keep a record of those who has already passed a background check for the purchase of a firearm. There's your registration list right there and de facto licensing to purchase.

The reality is, nature abhors a vacuum and tyrants abhor a political vacuum. If we do not push back on the issues, it creates a political vacuum the statists and tyrants must fill with ever increasingly draconian laws. Our political system isn't "fire & forget". To work, it requires all of us to remain ever vigilant

[GardoneVT]

I believe the current setup is as fair as we can reasonably expect in terms of gun rights vs legal encumberments thereof.

A Federal system that imposes legal firearms useage and carry on anti gun areas will not be received well. Even if Trump and the SCOTUS backed up pro gun Federal laws with teeth,the antis would dig in like the southern US during desegregation . You'd need US Marshalls camped out in the CCW offices to ensure the process worked without interference,and gun rights will never have that level of public traction .

Even if that scenario played out,the muscle would only last four years. Optimistically eight. After that the next liberal to occupy the White House will smash all that to bits,and it'd be back to business as usual in terms of obstructionist gun laws.

Leaving it in the hands of the states may not be ideal if you want to tote a Glock in Times Square as a visitor, but the reality of it is gun control and gun rights are a state-by-state issue in practice (yes I've read the USC). It's not the Feds imposing carry rights on people in Texas,nor is it the Feds imposing gun control on Californians. Those laws are passed and enacted by local politicians who are representing their constituents interests. New Jersey voters have a very different idea of gun rights from those in Montana ,and no amount of Federal intervention is going to alter that cultural divide.

[OlongJohnson]

Though I live in TX, I lived the longest in CA.

CA has UBCs, waiting periods, etc. They still get stuff like the little entitled asshole in Santa Barbara and the jihadis in San Bernardino.

The red pill that finally put the plane on the ground for me regarding gun control was to understand the magazine ban that was instituted in Los Angeles County at the end of 2015 and now will be afflicting the entire state. (A few bay area cities had it earlier, but nevermind those idiots.)

The key is to ask what are the legal requirements for a person to even be affected by the ban, which is a long story we all understand of broken promises, ratcheting normal, and boiled frogs. At the end of the day, those bans affect only people that any reasonable person would want to have for neighbors, and have be well-armed, if things got ugly in one's neighborhood. Also, those people are at risk for not voting Democrat in elections.

"More gun control" is Democrats' way of encouraging potential non-Democrat voters to choose to live somewhere that they'll feel more welcome.

It has nothing to do with public safety, or even guns. It's about control.

[Robinson]

By the way, and slightly related to the topic, Pat Mac was on the latest P&S modcast which streamed live last night. He stated he is not in favor of universal background checks or waiting periods. Creative editing misrepresented his comment on background checks and a long day of filming led to him "messing up" on the question about waiting periods on the Comedy Central program. I am not judging it one way or another, just passing along the comments made on the modcast.

[voodoo_man]

By the way, and slightly related to the topic, Pat Mac was on the latest P&S modcast which streamed live last night. He stated he is not in favor of universal background checks or waiting periods. Creative editing misrepresented his comment on background checks and a long day of filming led to him "messing up" on the question about waiting periods on the Comedy Central program. I am not judging it one way or another, just passing along the comments made on the modcast.

Walk back or reality....we may never know...

[XXXsilverXXX]

How about just fixing and forcing all local entities to upload all criminal activity to the NCIC, to many people get "archived" at local departments, or jails, and nothing ever happens, they still show up a clean and clear when getting a background check and they served a year or two for violent crimes. Then repeal the NFA.

[45dotACP]

Walk back or reality....we may never know...
Given the oxymoron of "journalistic integrity" I have a few untested hypotheses.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

[Drang]

Hypothetical law: universal background checks and three-day waiting periods are added, NFA is repealed, national carry reciprocity added.

Would need far more than "just" repeal of NFA and "national reciprocity."
Repeal GCA68 and the Hughes Amendment.
Allow interstate sales -- if I can pass the same background check in any state, why can't I buy a gun in any state?
Waive a waiting period if I can pass the NICS check.
Strict, continuous audit of the background check system to ensure it is only maintaining statistical records of checks, except in cases of clear cases of purchases, or attempted purchases, by prohibited persons.

[voodoo_man]

Given the oxymoron of "journalistic integrity" I have a few untested hypotheses.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

Oh yeah I totally agree. I've been decrying the non-existent morality and lack of ethical conduct of journalism for a long time.

But this is the bar fight scenario, you cant get into a bar fight if you never go to a bar.