Re: What does the club "think"...

51
could someone upload an edited version? I have a few suggestions, both substantive and stylistic, but would like to see where we are now before making them.

thanks,
Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, misdiagnosing the cause, and misapplying the wrong remedies. Marx (Groucho Marx)

Re: What does the club "think"...

52
I think that the linked version is the only one available; that is the edited version. Presuming that you are having some difficulty accessing it, here ya go:
On Regulation
We favor root cause mitigation for violence prevention, stronger mental health care, addressing poverty, homelessness and unemployment rather than focusing on prohibiting or restricting one tool.
This includes opposition to the so-called Assault Weapons Ban, as well as restrictions on magazine capacity and this view is directly related to our preference on an enforcement approach to regulation.

We favor enforcement of existing regulations over the creation of new regulatory schemes.
We believe that additional regulation is too often political window dressing and does not serve to resolve the ills for which it is claimed as a cure. This includes the so-called Assault Weapons Ban, as well as proposed restrictions on magazine capacity.

We favor increased, accurate reporting by states for NICS reliability.
States should be provided with incentives to increase accurate reporting. Additionally, certain federal programs can and should share information with one another on items such as mental health state (Social Security Disability, for instance) and federal drug testing results. There also needs to be an appeal process for items innaccurately or inappropriately persisted into the records of individuals.

We are in favor of mandatory safety testing as a condition of licensing for CCW
Demonstrating proficiency is less expensive for the applicant than mandatory training, we believe this mitigates any arbitrary financial barriers to a permitting process and is intimately related to our preference on national reciprocity.

We favor minimum standards based national CCW reciprocity
In our opinion, this preserves states rights and doesn’t impose standardless permits on states that don’t want them.
Subliterate Buffooery of the right...
Literate Ignorance of the left...
We Are So Screwed

Re: What does the club "think"...

53
Thanks Rolandson. That's the version I've seen. I had the impression from reading the posts that changes were being proposed and incorporated on the fly. My bad.
Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, misdiagnosing the cause, and misapplying the wrong remedies. Marx (Groucho Marx)

Re: What does the club "think"...

56
Safety test - how about passing the POST qualification? Although funny that many high level LEO are not required to qualify, but granted the 'privileged' of carrying. Not harping on LEO - sure many street LEOs would agree...

I do think more education on application of deadly force is a good thing, expense/time aspect is difficult to make equitable.
"If the misery of the poor be caused not by the laws of nature, but by our institutions, great is our sin” – Charles Darwin

Re: What does the club "think"...

57
In a generalized sense I encourage greater detail in describing what we mean and why we feel the way we do.

In a specific sense I suggest that phrases such as "so called" and AWB be exchanged for "often referenced" and "cosmetic and mechanical". 'so called' carries condescending over tones and "Assault Weapons" draws attention to precisely what these firearms are not without qualifying that the firearms in question are not weapons (until used as such) .

I use italics to differentiate between proposals and observation..

All too frequently discussions become distracted by argument over the meaning of a word being vastly different between opposing groups. Group A may adore "Assault Weapon" because these two words set the tone of the discussion, unfairly placing group B at an immediate disadvantage.

No discussion regarding Comprehensive Background Verification is being incorporated into any of this. I believe this to be an error from which recovery will be difficult.

From a strictly personal perspective I advocate strongly the incorporation of a National Firearms License in two classes (long gun and hand gun) to replace existing purchasing and ownership credentials, eliminating registration and point of sale background examination. Uniform licensing criteria insuring proficiency, competency, knowledge and understanding can be used to replace both CHL/CCW and NFA restrictions on modification and accessories renewable as determined by the various states.
Subliterate Buffooery of the right...
Literate Ignorance of the left...
We Are So Screwed

Re: What does the club "think"...

58
It's a good start.
That there will be no "retrofitting" of existing guns to take advantage of the advances of the modern nanny state, I do think that skills testing and root-cause mitigation (as well as punishing unauthorized access etc.) as the most effective options for gun control.

While I doubt this would be popular enough for inclusion, it may be worth considering an inheritance clause-- no gun can be willed/left to someone without standard new-gun buying qualifications. I would have no problem with a gun being held by a bonded third party in trust, aka safe-deposit box, but in my opinion, unearned guns are like unearned money-- dangerous for the recipient and society at large.
"Smell the hot rain on the street; it could be love, it could be alcohol."

Re: What does the club "think"...

59
classylib wrote:Given the current status quo I'd say these positions are reasonable, but I do have one minor angst over conceal carry I'll share for what it's worth. My thoughts on this are complex but I'll try to be as concise as possible (which I will fail at since I'm the long-winded sort). The shortest way I could express my thought is: Concealed carry permits may not be all they are cracked up to be, and if you can trust someone to open carry in many situations, you can probably trust them to carry concealed in most situations.

In my view the right to keep and bear arms, especially for personal defense, should be considered a basic civil right, every bit as dear as voting or being able to express your own cultural, ethnic, or religious distinctiveness. There are a number of reasons conceal carry is wiser than open carry, including reduction of general public angst at seeing weapons all the time, and not presenting yourself as a potential target for persons who might want to cause harm. Ironically it is open carry that is more often the default form of carry even though one has to have better discipline and situational awareness to do so safely.

I've never known a prohibited possessor to carry openly, nor to refrain from carrying concealed for lack of a permit. I haven't seen any science to indicate that communities like Arizona, where concealed carry for non-prohibited possessors was largely decriminalized, have experienced any greater rate of issues than they had prior to decriminalization of concealed carry.

I'd encourage collecting statistics on this so there can be an actual evidence based judgement on this, but I suspect we may ultimately find that the real importance is in determining who should be prohibited possessors and enforcing that line vs. the fuss about conceal carry in general, though I certainly could see a reason for special permitting and test for sensitive areas (schools for example). I know that doesn't really help with the assurance of training, but open carry doesn't really tend to have that requirement that either. Honestly since firearms and associated rights are such a major part of our culture I find it odd we have high school classes on health and driving, but don't have a class on weapon safety and basic proficiency. I'd be very interested to see science done on the effectiveness on public safety of proper law and proficiency training for firearms similar to driver's ed at the High school level.

Just my opinion for what it's worth (since thoughts were requested).
I like your opinion and I agree with the revised wording and conditions.
Image
Keep Bow Tight ~Sitting Bull
http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/90682-i ... ooks-ahead

Re: What does the club "think"...

60
Local chapters are free to develop additional detail as well. These won't get much more detailed than this, not the mission of the national club to develop policy.

We also won't tweak these to much, other than a it of word smithing, except at annual meetings. And I imagine, we will put up a paying members vote of some sort for any formal adoption.

Re: What does the club "think"...

61
DocSkinner wrote:Safety test - how about passing the POST qualification? Although funny that many high level LEO are not required to qualify, but granted the 'privileged' of carrying. Not harping on LEO - sure many street LEOs would agree.
This is news to me; even retired officers here in Washington are required to qualify every year. Where is mahogany row exempted?

I agree that being able to "challenge the course" is a practical option; and to require written test as well as demonstrate safe handling and proficiency every time. We need to be reminded of what we already know, when it comes to carrying the responsibility that a concealed weapon provides.
"il corporativismo è la pietra angolare dello Stato fascista" Translated, this means: "boom-shacka-lacka-lacka,-boom-boom-boom.

Re: What does the club "think"...

63
On Regulation
We favor root cause mitigation for violence prevention, stronger mental health care, addressing poverty, homelessness and unemployment rather than focusing on prohibiting or restricting one tool.
This includes opposition to the so-called Assault Weapons Ban, as well as restrictions on magazine capacity and this view is directly related to our preference on an enforcement approach to regulation.

I concur with Rolandson on the language here. Using the "so-called AWB" language could be perceived as derogatory and not sympathetic to folks who are pro-AWB. I'd favor language more in the lines of this.
This includes opposing new laws or regulations that target a specific class of rifle, handgun, or magazine size. Our preference is enforcement of existing laws and regulations, as well as pursuing solving, as pointed out above, the root causes of violence, instead of pursuing laws and regulations that do not show a statistically significant need.


We favor enforcement of existing regulations over the creation of new regulatory schemes.
We believe that additional regulation is too often political window dressing and does not serve to resolve the ills for which it is claimed as a cure. This includes the so-called Assault Weapons Ban, as well as proposed restrictions on magazine capacity.

This may be unnecessary duplication.

We favor increased, accurate reporting by states for NICS reliability.
States should be provided with incentives to increase accurate reporting. Additionally, certain federal programs can and should share information with one another on items such as mental health state (Social Security Disability, for instance) and federal drug testing results. There also needs to be an appeal process for items inaccurately or inappropriately persisted into the records of individuals.

Fixed spelling in bold. I'd also be in favor of mandating a single system instead of the hodge podge of current state systems that are in place. Colorado and California at least both have their own systems, which is wasteful and inefficient. A single improved system through NICS could ensure better reliability of data sharing across states and agencies, as well as ensuring that erroneous data, when identified, could be removed from the single system and not continue to create ongoing issues for individuals.

We are in favor of mandatory safety testing as a condition of licensing for CCW
Demonstrating proficiency is less expensive for the applicant than mandatory training, we believe this mitigates any arbitrary financial barriers to a permitting process and is intimately related to our preference on national reciprocity.

We favor minimum standards based national CCW reciprocity
In our opinion, this preserves states rights and doesn’t impose standardless permits on states that don’t want them.
This also could contain a section on "Shall issue" vs "May issue". If multiple states are "Shall Issue", then the current states that are "May Issue" would need to look at the way permits are handled. If there's a national standard, and I can, as a citizen of a "May Issue" state go across the border and obtain a permit, then wouldn't that invalidate or at least weaken the "May Issue" argument? Just thinking out loud on this one.
“Do the best you can until you know better. Then when you know better, do better.”
- Maya Angelou

Image

Re: What does the club "think"...

66
On the substantive front I suggest:
We favor enforcement of existing regulations over the creation of new regulatory schemes.
We believe that additional regulation is too often political window dressing and does not serve to resolve the ills for which it is claimed as a cure. This includes the so-called Assault Weapons Ban, as well as proposed restrictions on magazine capacity.
Play up the penchant to create new regulations at the expense of enforcing existing regulations. Standing on the floor of the Senate waving a bloody shirt and pleading for new laws is 1) grandstanding and 2) much easier than actually doing the leg work to enforce existing laws that might actually make a difference in the core problem.

Stylistically:

In point 3 the use of "persist" in that context doesn't sound quite right to me. Is that the word we want?

In the final point, a lot of folks have made good suggestions. I'll just add one. Frame it in terms of federalism. It "preserves the role of the states in a federal system of government and refrains from imposing the acceptance of standardless permits on unwilling states."

sorry for the pedantry. Just some thoughts.
Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, misdiagnosing the cause, and misapplying the wrong remedies. Marx (Groucho Marx)

Re: What does the club "think"...

68
A few quick points:

1) The first one, I think, falls for the current media narrative that gun crime is caused by the mentally ill. Of course, the devil is in the operational definition of "mentally ill," but if we are taking it to mean something like bipolar, schizophrenic, clinically depressed, etc., then no, most gun crimes are not committed by those people, and only a tiny tiny tiny fraction of that population is dangerous. I feel like we gun ownership supporters are just finding a bogeyman to pin the blame on. "It's the crazies! No one likes them!"

Of course I support improving mental health care, but it has nothing to do with gun crime.


2) The second one is a bit of a head-scratcher for me. What existing regulatory schemes? Where? What state? What city? Some strike me as very reasonable; others not so much. "We're okay with the bad laws that have been enacted already, but no more!" It's just not very meaningful. I know that the purpose of these things is to say something that is vague enough not to offend the fractious, non-conforming "left," but if that's the case, why say anything at all? This doesn't mean anything. What are the concepts this organization supports?

This is perhaps more of a critique of the left at large than of this particular statement. The endless striving for consensus ensures that nothing gets anything done at all.


3) This one bothers me the most, as some of the prohibitions seem to me to be unfair and unwarranted. I am not alone in this, of course, because states also make their own interpretations of the prohibitions. If states all got in line and did the same thing, local areas could not adjust regulations to fit their own populations. Despite the fact that I'm in favor of gun ownership wherever, I can't in good conscience propose the same regulatory framework for New York City as I can for Casper, Wyoming.

I am originally from Colorado (I live in Japan now, but became a member of this organization because I am a pro-gun left-leaner—in fact I am pro-gun because I am a left-leaner), where we just made marijuana legal (hooray, despite the fact that I hate the stuff). However, it's still illegal nationally. Someone who is legally partaking in marijuana in Colorado could be prohibited gun ownership based on the GCA/NICS list of prohibited people. Why? I'm not worried that a stoner is going to pop a cap in my particular ass because I don't like Bob Marley. The jailtime prohibition is similarly problematic, because there are a lot of things you can go to jail for for over a year that I either do not support, or that do not reflect on one's ability to safely own a firearm. Commitment to a mental institution, as well, is not necessarily an indication of danger, without knowing the particulars. And finally, being dishonorably discharged from the military seems to be completely unrelated.

Why would we want to support the expansion of a system that is flawed? Most of these prohibitions seem not to be aimed at denying gun ownership to dangerous people, but at denying them to anyone but upper-middle-class white people.

This is perhaps an extension of my concern about the "no new laws" point; the existing laws are not especially good; why propose further enforcement of those as an alternative to new, worse ones? "No, Master, don't bring in the car battery; just hit me harder with rubber hose!"


4) This is great.


5) This is good too, and I don't have any problem with the "states' rights" phrasing. Just because anti-abortionists and slave-owners use these two words doesn't mean they are bad. I don't see supporting states' rights as being contradictory to my overall liberal ideology.

Re: What does the club "think"...

69
JinxRemoving wrote:It's a good start.
That there will be no "retrofitting" of existing guns to take advantage of the advances of the modern nanny state, I do think that skills testing and root-cause mitigation (as well as punishing unauthorized access etc.) as the most effective options for gun control.

While I doubt this would be popular enough for inclusion, it may be worth considering an inheritance clause-- no gun can be willed/left to someone without standard new-gun buying qualifications. I would have no problem with a gun being held by a bonded third party in trust, aka safe-deposit box, but in my opinion, unearned guns are like unearned money-- dangerous for the recipient and society at large.
I strongly caution against any disruption of the 'grandpa's gun'. It would go poorly. One of the few good things last April was the idea that family members could transfer firearms across state lines without an FFL.
In a bacon, egg and cheese sandwich the chicken and cow are involved while the pig is committed.

Re: What does the club "think"...

72
Speaking as a newcomer, I have no real problems with the positions. I sense some compromise and that is good as a rule.

Existing regulations - my thought there is no one ever gives existing systems, etc., a chance to work. Let's be patient and see if they are effective. If not, enter into a dialogue o see why not.

You know, this country of 50 states and two territories (Puerto Rico and Guam) is diverse - different needs, points of view, racial makes ups, resources, climates, etc. National consensus on emotional issues is unlikely. I think it is fair to say that most states or even almost all states have very few problems with long guns and shotguns and very densely populated states are concerned about high capacity semi-automatic weapons. It would be good if New York would recognize VA CC permits, but it is never going to happen - heck, MD and DC do not and they are next door. Even W VA think VA CC permits are useless. But, perhaps it would be better if VA was a little tougher on the CC permits. My view of the 10th Amendment to the Constitution makes it unlikely national standards will ever arise (Reserved Power Clause) that will pass constitutional muster short of an amendment and that is not going to happen. So, I am afraid the status quo with some slight modification here and there is the best we can hope for.

This Club is a great thing because it proves the nut ball NRA conservatives have mischaracterized all liberals as being anti-gun. Many of the are social conservatives who really have little understanding of the 2d Amendment or what it means. They vote they way they do because besides or in addition to no gun control they agree with other positions, like no abortion, they hate government, or whatever. another thing the club does is show that liberals are not monolithic.

Re: What does the club "think"...

73
rolandson wrote:I think that the linked version is the only one available; that is the edited version. Presuming that you are having some difficulty accessing it, here ya go:
On Regulation
We favor root cause mitigation for violence prevention, stronger mental health care, addressing poverty, homelessness and unemployment rather than focusing on prohibiting or restricting one tool.
This includes opposition to the so-called Assault Weapons Ban, as well as restrictions on magazine capacity and this view is directly related to our preference on an enforcement approach to regulation.

We favor enforcement of existing regulations over the creation of new regulatory schemes.
We believe that additional regulation is too often political window dressing and does not serve to resolve the ills for which it is claimed as a cure. This includes the so-called Assault Weapons Ban, as well as proposed restrictions on magazine capacity.

We favor increased, accurate reporting by states for NICS reliability.
States should be provided with incentives to increase accurate reporting. Additionally, certain federal programs can and should share information with one another on items such as mental health state (Social Security Disability, for instance) and federal drug testing results. There also needs to be an appeal process for items innaccurately or inappropriately persisted into the records of individuals.

We are in favor of mandatory safety testing as a condition of licensing for CCW
Demonstrating proficiency is less expensive for the applicant than mandatory training, we believe this mitigates any arbitrary financial barriers to a permitting process and is intimately related to our preference on national reciprocity.

We favor minimum standards based national CCW reciprocity
In our opinion, this preserves states rights and doesn’t impose standardless permits on states that don’t want them.
I stumbled on "root cause mitigation." Sounds like it came from someone's tedious thesis. Keep it simple and direct. We favor mitigating the root causes of violence, etc. If you're married to it, use the hyphen to form the compound adjective: root-cause mitigation.

I think federalism was a very bad compromise. Why should an educational system, for example, be different in Massachusetts than it is in Texas? Same for gun ownership. There should be a single national standard. If you can legally purchase a firearm and demonstrate competence with it you should be able to carry it, concealed or open, anywhere. That would obviate the entire reciprocity mess, which is more about politics and money than safety and security.

Is "mandatory safety testing" the same as "demonstrating proficiency"? I'm not sure it is. I think gun owners should have some level of demonstrable competence, including an understanding of how to use firearms and how to safely store them.

I generally support a statement of positions, but I think it needs to be thought out a little more.

Re: What does the club "think"...

74
AllanC wrote:
rolandson wrote:I think that the linked version is the only one available; that is the edited version. Presuming that you are having some difficulty accessing it, here ya go:
On Regulation
We favor root cause mitigation for violence prevention, stronger mental health care, addressing poverty, homelessness and unemployment rather than focusing on prohibiting or restricting one tool.
This includes opposition to the so-called Assault Weapons Ban, as well as restrictions on magazine capacity and this view is directly related to our preference on an enforcement approach to regulation.

We favor enforcement of existing regulations over the creation of new regulatory schemes.
We believe that additional regulation is too often political window dressing and does not serve to resolve the ills for which it is claimed as a cure. This includes the so-called Assault Weapons Ban, as well as proposed restrictions on magazine capacity.

We favor increased, accurate reporting by states for NICS reliability.
States should be provided with incentives to increase accurate reporting. Additionally, certain federal programs can and should share information with one another on items such as mental health state (Social Security Disability, for instance) and federal drug testing results. There also needs to be an appeal process for items innaccurately or inappropriately persisted into the records of individuals.

We are in favor of mandatory safety testing as a condition of licensing for CCW
Demonstrating proficiency is less expensive for the applicant than mandatory training, we believe this mitigates any arbitrary financial barriers to a permitting process and is intimately related to our preference on national reciprocity.

We favor minimum standards based national CCW reciprocity
In our opinion, this preserves states rights and doesn’t impose standardless permits on states that don’t want them.
I stumbled on "root cause mitigation." Sounds like it came from someone's tedious thesis. Keep it simple and direct. We favor mitigating the root causes of violence, etc. If you're married to it, use the hyphen to form the compound adjective: root-cause mitigation.

I think federalism was a very bad compromise. Why should an educational system, for example, be different in Massachusetts than it is in Texas? Same for gun ownership. There should be a single national standard. If you can legally purchase a firearm and demonstrate competence with it you should be able to carry it, concealed or open, anywhere. That would obviate the entire reciprocity mess, which is more about politics and money than safety and security.

Is "mandatory safety testing" the same as "demonstrating proficiency"? I'm not sure it is. I think gun owners should have some level of demonstrable competence, including an understanding of how to use firearms and how to safely store them.

I generally support a statement of positions, but I think it needs to be thought out a little more.
It is worlds better than what we had previously. ;)
In a bacon, egg and cheese sandwich the chicken and cow are involved while the pig is committed.

Re: What does the club "think"...

75
AllanC wrote:I stumbled on "root cause mitigation." Sounds like it came from someone's tedious thesis. Keep it simple and direct. We favor mitigating the root causes of violence, etc. If you're married to it, use the hyphen to form the compound adjective: root-cause mitigation.
I was going to flag that missing hyphen but was disheartened enough by some of the rest of it to let it go.
sbɐɯ ʎʇıɔɐdɐɔ pɹɐpuɐʇs ɟo ןןnɟ ǝɟɐs
ɯɯ6 bdd ɹǝɥʇןɐʍ
13ʞ
"ǝuıqɹɐɔ 1ɐ4ɯ" dɯɐʇsןןoɹ --- ɯoɔos0269ǝן ʇןoɔ
"ǝuıqɹɐɔ ʇuǝɯǝɔɹoɟuǝ ʍɐן sʇןoɔ" dɯɐʇsןןoɹ --- 0269ǝן ʇןoɔ
(béɟ) 59-pɯɐ

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Amazon [Bot] and 3 guests