Innovative Approach to Achieving Bipartisan Support for Gun Control Legislation

I’ve been diligently working on a comprehensive and strategic approach to passing effective gun control legislation, specifically targeting universal background checks at gun fairs. Despite reaching out to Senator Chuck Schumer, Congressman Anthony D’Esposito, and the White House, I have yet to receive a response. I am writing to you because I believe your leadership and influence can help bring this crucial initiative to fruition.

A Win-Win Solution to Gun Control

The core of my proposal lies in addressing and anticipating the concerns of Republican House members and their influential partners, including the NRA and associated lobbying groups. By understanding and leveraging their motivations, I have devised a solution that benefits all parties involved.

The Proposal

  1. Formation of an Advisory Committee:
  • This committee would include CFOs from major gun manufacturers, investing/financial analysts, economists, public safety advocates, and legal experts on gun control legislation.
  • The committee’s primary task would be to quantify the financial impact of implementing universal background checks at gun fairs. This includes potential revenue losses, upfront costs, and ongoing expenses related to technology, staff, and execution.
  1. Strategic Financial Investment:
  • Based on the committee’s findings, Congress would allocate funds for purchasing preferred stock in major gun manufacturers at a 20% premium to the quantified financial impact, distributed according to market share.
  • This investment would incentivize gun manufacturers by providing immediate financial benefits and long-term gains through stock price appreciation and dividend payments.
  1. Buyback and Holding Period:
  • The US government commits to holding these shares for ten years, during which time the manufacturers can benefit from reduced liquidity in their float and a positive stock price influence.
  • Manufacturers have the option to buy back their shares at any time at a 20% premium. If held for ten years, the government will sell the shares at 20% below the stock price, ensuring a guaranteed gain for the manufacturers.
  1. Promotion and Lobbying:
  • The advisory committee will work closely with gun manufacturers and their lobbyists to advocate for the enactment of universal background checks at gun fairs.
  • Regular progress reports will be submitted to Congress to ensure transparency and accountability.

Breaking Through Opposition

This approach not only anticipates the primary reasons for opposition from Republican House members and their influential partners but also ensures that the solution is mutually beneficial. The financial structure of the proposal offers a win-win scenario, providing economic incentives for gun manufacturers while promoting public safety through stricter background checks.

2 Likes

Call to Action

I firmly believe that this innovative approach can achieve bipartisan support for meaningful gun control legislation. It addresses the concerns of all stakeholders, provides financial incentives, and promotes public safety. However, to make this vision a reality, it requires attention and action from influential leaders like yourself.

I urge you to consider this proposal and lend your support to initiate discussions and actions towards its implementation. Your leadership can play a pivotal role in breaking the stalemate and advancing this critical issue.

Thank you for your time and consideration. I look forward to the opportunity to discuss this proposal further and work together to create a safer and more responsible approach to gun ownership in our country.

Sincerely,

Danny McLellan

1 Like

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the “Gun Fair Background Check Incentive Act”.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.

(a) Findings:

  1. Gun violence is a significant public health issue in the United States.
  2. Background checks are a proven method to prevent firearms from falling into the wrong hands.
  3. Gun shows and fairs are loopholes in the current background check system.
  4. Financial incentives can be a powerful motivator for corporate and political action.

(b) Purpose: The purpose of this Act is to form a committee to quantify the impact of implementing universal background checks at gun fairs and to use strategic investments in gun manufacturers to promote the adoption of these measures.

SEC. 3. FORMATION OF ADVISORY COMMITTEE.

(a) Establishment: An advisory committee shall be established to oversee the quantification of the impact and the investment strategy.

(b) Membership: The committee shall consist of:

  1. Chief Financial Officers (CFOs) from major gun manufacturers.
  2. Investing/financial analysts.
  3. Economists.
  4. Public safety advocates.
  5. Legal experts on gun control legislation.

(c) Responsibilities:

  1. Quantify the financial impact of implementing universal background checks at gun fairs, including loss in revenue, upfront costs, and ongoing expenses.
  2. Identify necessary technological and staffing requirements.
  3. Report findings to Congress with detailed cost estimates.

SEC. 4. AUTHORIZATION OF INVESTMENT.

(a) Authorization of Appropriations: There are authorized to be appropriated $X,000,000 for the purchase of preferred stock in gun manufacturing companies.

(b) Investment Strategy: The Secretary of the Treasury shall invest in preferred stock of the following gun manufacturers based on their market share:

  1. Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc.
  2. Sturm, Ruger & Co., Inc.
  3. Other prominent gun manufacturers as identified by the committee.

(c) Dividend Use: Dividends received from these investments shall be used to fund initiatives promoting public safety, including but not limited to gun violence prevention programs and research.

SEC. 5. INCENTIVES FOR GUN MANUFACTURERS.

(a) Stock Purchase Terms:

  1. The US government will purchase preferred stock at a 20% premium to the quantified financial impact, distributed across manufacturers based on market share.
  2. Manufacturers may buy back their shares at any time at a 20% increase to the purchase price.

(b) Holding Period: The US government will commit to holding the shares for a period of 10 years. During this time, manufacturers can benefit from reduced liquidity in their float and positive stock price influence.

(c) Buyback Option: Manufacturers have the option to buy back their shares at any time at a 20% premium. After 10 years, the government will sell the shares at 20% less than the stock price, ensuring a 20% gain for the manufacturers if they choose not to buy back the shares.

1 Like

SEC. 6. PROMOTION OF UNIVERSAL BACKGROUND CHECKS.

(a) Lobbying Efforts: The advisory committee shall work with gun manufacturers and their lobbyists to promote the enactment of universal background checks at gun fairs.

(b) Reporting: The advisory committee shall report to Congress annually on the progress of lobbying efforts and the impact of the investments.

SEC. 7. TERMINATION.

This Act shall terminate 10 years after the date of enactment, unless extended by Congress.

SEC. 8. EFFECTIVE DATE.

This Act shall take effect 90 days after the date of enactment.

SEC. 9. BUDGETARY EFFECTS.

The budgetary effects of this Act, for the purpose of complying with the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010, shall be determined by the latest statement of budgetary effects issued by the Chairman of the House Budget Committee, provided that such statement has been submitted prior to the vote on passage.

1 Like

I’m sorry you’ve been led to believe something that cost you so much of your time, there is no gun show loophole. when you buy a gun from a Federal Firearms Licensee (aka the only people that can legally sell guns commercially) you fill out a 4473, that’s the fbi firearms background check. that happens EVERY time you buy a gun commercially, regardless of the venue. Private sales are the only exception, and nothing about gun show regulations would affect those.

But in good faith, here is my proposal. Repeal the nfa, repeal the gca, open the nics (background check) system to the public for private sales. stop trying to ban guns that have no more capability than others because they look scarier to you. a law abiding citizen who can pass a background check can own whatever they want and can afford. If you commit a crime using a gun add 20 years to the maximum sentence. if robbery is 2 years, armed robbery is 22 years.

Where I’m at in Chicago people will literally be arrested for gun crimes while awaiting trial for other gun crimes. they laugh at cops because they know they won’t be held. they don’t even try most of the cases in court. hold individuals accountable for individual behavior and keep victimizers locked up, crime will plummet.

Illegally acquired firearms account for over 90% of gun crime, these people are not buying guns legally or commercially. they are not showing id and filling out a form, and this isn’t a problem because of gun shows. this is a problem because new gun laws only affect those who follow the law in the first place, and they’re not the ones you need to worry about.

1 Like

I always thought there was a gun show loophole. Good to know. Thank you for this post, it has good points. I agree that more people are killed with illegal guns and people with illegal guns ought to be held accountable. I also think that it is easy to demonize things that look scary and use them to detract from real issues. What you are proposing seems fair. Unfortunately, neither side of the aisle is willing to compromise (aka corporate dollars) so nothing changes. Personally, I think we need to do more in schools to care for the mental health of our kids, have real consequences for bullying, and create safe spaces to make schools safer for everyone.

1 Like

thank you for your thoughtful answer. there is so much silo thinking and special interest money in the subject. it’s refreshing to converse with someone open to information and ideas. we need to absolutely undo everything ronald regan did to mental health in this country…and the economy while we’re at it.

i think the worst talking point is ‘guns are the leading killer of children’. That study counts everyone under 20 as a child and excludes under 1 year olds. 86% of ‘child’ gun deaths are 18-19 year olds. no child deaths are acceptable, but it clouds the real reasons and solutions when it’s twisted.

1 Like

I thank you as well and agree that there are so many things we can do to help prevent mass shootings as long as we all actually listen to each other and try to remain as rational as possible on this heated topic.

That is a horribly formulated statistic! I am all for facts and statistics, but it pisses me off to no end when statistics are used (in my opinion) unethically. Spouting statistics like this does nothing but prevent solutions.

IMO, that’s a very condescending way to start a reply. Especially one that states “EVERY TIME, …except for private sales” - yea…there’s one right there. And nothing about existing regulations affect that. - yea, exactly.

Anyways, Yes, the ATF 4473 form needs to be filled out. Well aware. My post didn’t breakdown every loophole, as this is to address all the ways in which you can purchase guns at fairs without having to do so. For example: (1) if you are not an FFL dealer, you are still allowed to sell guns. Most do it under the cloak of ‘liquidating a gun collection’, but many are just buying and selling. (2) the laws that prevent domestic abusers only applies to spouses, so a pos boyfriend that beats his girlfriend would still be able to purchase. (3) the Charlston loophole (exposed when that mass shooter killed people in a church) states that if the background check doesn’t come back in 3 days, they can buy anyway. There was a glitch and he would have been prevented otherwise. (4) felony hate crimes plea bargained down to a misdemeaner. (5) the red flag system being flawed, which led to the buffalo shooter for one, but others as well. I’m sure there are other loopholes as well.

The purpose of the Bill is to create a solution that gun mfrs would be on board with. The intricacies of the loopholes are part of the solution which stands outside of this bill and would be built by a team from several areas.

I’m with you on your other suggestions. Respect the right to own, outside of those who are violent or admitted to a hospital because they threatened to shoot up a school, etc. Adding to gun crimes, a big yes. With that, the solution will need more jails, unless we lessen the punishment for non-violent crimes (excluding those that prey financially). In Amsterdam, I asked why there weren’t many cops nor crimes - the answer was something along those lines. The punishment was so severe , it was rarely violated.

While yes, 70-90% of crimes are with illegally obtained guns, your statement of gun shows and loopholes not being the cause completely ignores what this is intended to address - domestic abusers that get guns, those with felonies but the check took 3+ days, red flag issues - essentially, those that should not have gotten those guns if not for the loopholes, so obviously it would be obtained legally and be part of that 70-90%.

I think we’re on the same page with everything, sans the ‘led to believe’ statement. :wink:

1 Like

The financial incentive in the Bill was built to to solve for getting both sides to come together AND PACs looking out for corporate profits to get on board as well. They literally make more money than the amount they’ll lose with the bill. We do need to do more for mental health. There should be at least 2 psychologists at each school and a public line to report potential shooters. Many school shootings had kids that were a concern but the school hid it or didn’t properly address. That’s changed a lot, but there still needs to be a national line that ties to the background check, unless that already exists.

1 Like

Hey bud, wasn’t meant to be condescending. I, fairly regularly, debate with people that have gotten their information on guns exclusively from msnbc, giffords, and everytown. The misinformation about gun regulations in staggering. The most egregious of which is the ‘child death’ statistics that are easily debunked.

(example 1) I’m not opposed to placing the same restrictions on private sales as commercial sales, I’m actually very in favor of it. But there needs to be an overhaul of the process to allow access by everyone who wants to sell, and a remedy for the extended delays. A right delayed is a right denied.

But you agreeing with me about 70-90% of gun crimes being done with illegally acquired firearms does show these gun show regulations won’t do anything about the vast majority of gun crime.

(example 4) Illegal gun traffickers and buyers should have the book thrown at them. They need to enforce the gun laws we already have because as long as most of them won’t even see a courtroom criminals have no incentive to stop. They literally will not prosecute over 80% of gun cases in cook county (Chicago), offenders get released. Recidivism is the biggest issue in gun crime. As you said, in Amsterdam the juice isn’t worth the squeeze. Do you think the guys selling guns to crips and bloods and latin kings is really buying a table at a gun show with all the serial numbers scratched off? That is most gun crime right there.

(example 3) Taking longer than 3 days for a background check to come back when most of them are instant approvals/denials is an fbi problem that needs fixing. the highland park shooter had multiple red flag reports that the police did nothing about. you’ll find the same for many mass shooters, the police were aware of them already and did nothing. that is a police problem. there needs to be a process for reporting dangerous people that respects due process but actually goes after dangerous people instead of ignoring them until it’s too late.

(example 2) In 2020 more people were killed with hands and feet than with guns. that abusive boyfriend could easily kill his girlfriend without a gun, but the regulation and hoops will keep that girlfriend (should be ex girlfriend) from acquiring the means to defend herself.

I think in principle we are very close, we recognize the shortcomings of the system and want to change it for the better. We simply disagree on what actions will result in the most positive change to the problem, which is ok. Neither of us is infallible. Thank you for taking the time to fully explain your thoughts instead of hurling insults and saying I want children to die (I get a lot of that). Good on you for doing the work to come up with something. I disagree with the efficacy, not the intention.

1 Like