Alright, I'm new here so if this is not the correct place for policy discussion, please direct me to the correct place.
In light of the recent shooting and the momentum behind the gun control lobby at the present time, it is almost impossible for even the likes of the NRA to hold everything in place. Compromise is needed, and we need to be the ones who propose it first or risk an unfavorable law, like an AWB, being shoved down our throats. The question is, what would be a favorable compromise?
My answer is this: create a nationwide licence that you receive at no charge when you have a background check. You can then display this licence, provided it is recent, that will allow you to buy firearms. This applies to both private sale and to sales by licensed dealers. This would close the "Gun show loophole" without making gun shows illegal, and it would be more comprehensive, covering all private sales. Further, it would be a political victory for the Democrats who have been striving so hard to close the loophole and typically back off after a victory like this, while not infringing on the rights of law abiding gun owners.
What are your opinions of this?
In light of the recent shooting and the momentum behind the gun control lobby at the present time, it is almost impossible for even the likes of the NRA to hold everything in place. Compromise is needed, and we need to be the ones who propose it first or risk an unfavorable law, like an AWB, being shoved down our throats. The question is, what would be a favorable compromise?
My answer is this: create a nationwide licence that you receive at no charge when you have a background check. You can then display this licence, provided it is recent, that will allow you to buy firearms. This applies to both private sale and to sales by licensed dealers. This would close the "Gun show loophole" without making gun shows illegal, and it would be more comprehensive, covering all private sales. Further, it would be a political victory for the Democrats who have been striving so hard to close the loophole and typically back off after a victory like this, while not infringing on the rights of law abiding gun owners.
What are your opinions of this?