Tam on waiting periods

[Andiron]

http://booksbikesboomsticks.blogspot.com/2017/06/cooldown-period.html

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 FFL dealers for that package deal.But that's not what the other side means by "compromise".

paraphrased, did she actually just say she'd trade those 3 gems and a giant PITA for the equivalent of an organ donor sticker for felons on an ID card?  Because if that's what I'm reading,  I think she'd lost her mind.

[dogmush]

I read it that she'd be willing to trade installing her version of universal background checks for deregulating suppressors, allowing interstate handgun sales, and repealing the Hughes amendment.  Her Background check was defined as "negitive" check:

As far as Universal Background Checks, here's the correct and constitutional way to implement those: Since the right to keep and bear arms is a civil right, the default setting is that everyone has it. If someone becomes a felon or is otherwise debarred from arms, then make a NO GUNS ALLOWED black mark on their DL/ID/passport/whatever.

Show me an ID without that disclaimer, and you'd be good to go, no background check necessary. And you'd be good to go in all 50 states, at that.

Life is rarely perfect,I'd probably take that compromise if it was offered by the left.

[Jamisjockey]

I read it that she'd be willing to trade installing her version of universal background checks for deregulating suppressors, allowing interstate handgun sales, and repealing the Hughes amendment.  Her Background check was defined as "negitive" check:

Life is rarely perfect,I'd probably take that compromise if it was offered by the left.

Indeed.  The concept of a negative background check, where one could use what is essentially universal ID (deny that the driver's license isn't, I dare ya!), as an immediate way of proof of eligibility. 
Instead of requiring the law abiding to jump through hoops, this places the mark on a person who would be deemed ineligible under current law. 
What this does miss the mark on is the *expletive deleted*it that has been pushed through regarding restraining orders, domestic assault and the like.  While I'm okay with that, the left would never allow it without mechanisms for marking up all currently prohibited persons.

[T.O.M.]

Not sure about other states, but here in Ohio, a driver's license is good for 4 years.  Not exactly the easiest way to keep an up-to-date reference regarding who may or may not have restrictions.  Now, I could almost guarantee you that the state .gov would love to collect money... I mean require license renewal on an annual basis, which would make this better.  But I'm already charged annually for plates on my car.  Don't really want to start paying $25 a year for my license.  Plus, there's the hassle of having to take off from work to go to the BMV to get my license renewed, take the vision screening, etc...

[Ben]

What this does miss the mark on is the *expletive deleted*it that has been pushed through regarding restraining orders, domestic assault and the like.  While I'm okay with that, the left would never allow it without mechanisms for marking up all currently prohibited persons.

Yup. Lots of slippery slope and privacy issues here, because we all know that even if it were practically feasible (see Chris's post) "no guns" would not be the only thing marked on the license, because statists (across the political spectrum) would want to put all kinds of "criminal identifiers" on the license.

I would also see a lot of privacy issues with this, especially if applied beyond the gun issue. While some people are stupid criminals, plenty of others have just made a stupid mistake in their lives and paid for it. Should they be given the mark of the beast for everyone from their bank teller to the checkout clerk at the Walmart verifying credit card ID to see?

[lee n. field]

Not sure about other states, but here in Ohio, a driver's license is good for 4 years.  Not exactly the easiest way to keep an up-to-date reference regarding who may or may not have restrictions.  Now, I could almost guarantee you that the state .gov would love to collect money... I mean require license renewal on an annual basis, which would make this better.  But I'm already charged annually for plates on my car.  Don't really want to start paying $25 a year for my license.  Plus, there's the hassle of having to take off from work to go to the BMV to get my license renewed, take the vision screening, etc...

so, part of becoming a prohibited posessor might be that you have to turn in your DL, and get issued a new one, with the black mark.

[dogmush]

Yup. Lots of slippery slope and privacy issues here, because we all know that even if it were practically feasible (see Chris's post) "no guns" would not be the only thing marked on the license, because statists (across the political spectrum) would want to put all kinds of "criminal identifiers" on the license.

I would also see a lot of privacy issues with this, especially if applied beyond the gun issue. While some people are stupid criminals, plenty of others have just made a stupid mistake in their lives and paid for it. Should they be given the mark of the beast for everyone from their bank teller to the checkout clerk at the Walmart verifying credit card ID to see?

True.  IIRC several states were trying to make things like non citizen ID's and people with Prior DUI's have distinctive ID's and/or license plates.  They were sued and lost in court.  But I doubt the ACLU would fight this particular Scarlet Letter.

[Ben]

True.  IIRC several states were trying to make things like non citizen ID's and people with Prior DUI's have distinctive ID's and/or license plates.  They were sued and lost in court.  But I doubt the ACLU would fight this particular Scarlet Letter.

I would have no problems with the "non-citizen" identifier, given that they are non-citizens. DUI is a good example though. We've had many discussions around here on the arbitrary enforcement on that (e.g., leaning on your car in the driveway with a beer). If someone has committed a serious DUI, take their license away. Either keep it away, or else if they "get clean" give them a "clean" license back.

[RevDisk]

Concur that I'm fine with it being added to state ID. Even if done by states voluntarily.

I remind the anti-gun folks all the time that they are demanding concessions. Not "compromises". As nothing is being offered in return. They want to take without giving anything back. I have personally mentioned that deal as well. If they demanded universal background checks, I'd be fine with that. Provided information security was handed better than now, suppressors and NFA, national shall-issue, etc etc.

I was only half serious. Because I knew they would continue to make demands without wanting to give anything in return. So instead we would have to make our demands without giving them an inch. Because they refuse to negotiate, we cannot either.