NPR elucidates on NRA gun-control laws (what do THEY know?)

Following Election, NRA Goes On 'Offense'; Here's What It Could Aim To Do : The Two-Way : NPR:

 There are a number of laws that the NRA and gun enthusiasts would like to see change under the Trump administration. 

That's fair, and we are happy to discuss the issues.   But National Public Radio is a Liberal organization, and as such they have some concerns ... which may not be publicly acknowledged in every article they write or air.

I have my own issues.  Here are what NPR identifies, and what MY issues are:

ISSUE NUMBER 1!:

1. National reciprocity for concealed-carry permits 

This is the biggest-ticket item for the NRA and it's the most likely to happen. Trump, a concealed-carry-permit holder, has said that concealed carry "is a right, not a privilege," and that a permit should be valid in all 50 states, similar to a driver's license.

Simple:  If your state considers you sufficiently responsible to carry a concealed handgun in YOUR state all other states should recognize  your right to carry.

* Just now, that's difficult because each state has its own criteria.  For example, Oregon only requires you to pass background checks and pass a raining course; but the neighboring state Washington has slightly more stringent requirements, so Washington may not recognize an Oregon CHL even though Oregon recognizes (and respects) a Washington CHL.

*not a quote

Or word to that effect .. the details are a little more complicated, but that's a fair representation of the issues.

(TERMINOLOGY NOTE "CHL" = Concealed handgun Licence for the purpose of this discussion.)

The reference to "driver's license" rights is dismissive of the 2nd Amendment Constitutional Rights, but gun owners are willing to put this issue aside for the moment.

It gets complicated when CHL applicants complain that the 2nd amendment recognizes this right without the need to 'take a test', which many states require (as well as 'special training'),  It's a legitimate issue, but most folks are willing to allow this "misinterpretation" to be accepted as an administrative glitch;   for now.

(And Anti-Gun protesters claim that gun owners are not willing to compromise!)

ISSUE NUMBER 2!:

2: An end to gun-free military zones.

We've seen several instances where serving military have been assaulted by illegally armed individuals  in a military base.  The soldiers were not allowed to carry a weapon, although they were, arguably, the most qualified individuals in the nation to carry a weapon.

This administrative change would recognize the competence and good judgement of serving military personnel (because packing a gun is their job!_, acknowledge that they are in a "at risk" environment, and provide them the ability to defend themselves in what is, after all, 'their home'  (the base where they are assigned, and required to either live or at least be present during the normal performance of their duties.)

You trust police with guns, and they get lest initial training, and less annual "hands on" training than most Military personnel.  Y'all might want to step back and ... thank about thiat.

the official announcement:

At a rally in January, Trump said, "My first day, there's no more gun-free zones." He was talking about schools and military bases. He later clarified his position on schools, saying that school resource officers or teachers should be allowed to carry them. He has not publicly changed his opinion on military bases.Currently, most gun owners on military bases must register their firearm and store it in an armory while on base. The only people who can carry guns while on a military base are on-duty military, state or local police.

ISSUE NUMBER 3!:

3. Removing suppressors from the National Firearms Act

This is  a slightly more controversial subject.

"Suppressors" are commonly known a "Silencers"   These devices attach to the the forward end of the barrel of a firearm (either as a permanent or a temporary attachment) and serve the purpose of attenuating the  NOISE which issues through the barrel when a firearm is discharged.

The reason why this adjustment to Federal Firearms' Regulation is requested is that the detonation of a rifle, or many pistols, exceeds the safe level of noise to the ear.

I can personally attest to the effects of long-term exposure to loud unattenuated reverberation from both pistol and rifle. 

I'm 71 years old, and I've been shooting rifles and handguns in testing  and hunting environments, and most especially in competition environments for the past 30 years.  My hearing has degrade to the point that as a consequence my most common response to a question is "HUH?" because I can't hear it.

Yes, I wear 'ear muffs' almost every time people are shooting firearms in my presence, but this is an insufficient measure of protection .. as my personal deafness stands in silent protest.

This situation could have easily been prevented if the federal regulations on the use of "silencers" had been made available to the common citizen during the past 50 years. 

 But the Federal government sees no better justification for restriction of a "Silencer" than that it covers the activities of a felon during the commission of a crime.

In my personal and professional opinion, this is one of most inane, deft, unreasonable and downright STUPID laws that the Federal Government has enacted in the past hundred years.

ISSUE NUMBER 4!:

4. Revamping federal background check process

Nobody is entirely happy with the federal government's current background check process or its database, the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. Gun control groups argue that there are too many loopholes in it, and many gun rights groups concur — a rare show of agreement — though not in the details.

Actually, that's not the reason why firearms owners are so resistant to  .. let's call it "Universal Background Check" system.

Yeah, we get it.  Sometimes the dude we're selling a firearm (which is no longer a necessary part of our personal weapons locker) to is not the really nice guy he seems to be.

And  we kind of appreciate that we have an options, where we can check him out before we hand over a firearm to him.

BUT WHY DO THE FEDS HAVE TO ADD ON ALL THIS CRAP!

We GET it; we should check the guy out, and it's a convenience that we have to make one phone call to determine if the buyer is a felon, or otherwise  not an appropriate owner of a firearm.

The National Instant Check System folks can tell you in a minute whether they're comfortable with you selling this guy a firearm

But they don't just want to vet the buyer; they want to know about the seller.  And most important:  They want to know the gun.  Make, model, and SERIAL NUMBER!  All of this information is loaded into NICS, and it's suppose to disappear after x-number of days.

Right.

(_And I will respect you in the morning, Darling._)

The identification of the firearms is not suppose to be maintained in the data base, but why do they need it to verify the legitimacy of the purchaser?

They don't.  But they still require that you (the seller) provide the information in order to verify the buyer.  Does that make sense to you?

Me either.

And that's why I don't trust the NICS, the ATF, and in this case the NPR folks because they don't understand the issues.

Ain't it FUNNY ...

.. how simple little things which are just kind of 'filler articles' for NPR turn out to be emotion-laden issues for people who have to deal with the 'assumptions' that make an ass out of you?

And the people regulating and reporting are all

THREE LETTER INITIAL ORGANIZATIONS!

ATF

NPR

NICS (THEY'RE A LITTLE SLOW)