Well, that was pretty heavily edited, but it sounded like Pat Mac was in favor of waiting periods. The background check remark was pretty ambiguous. I mean, we already *have* background checks, so...
This popped up in his Instagram feed...
I've participated in two internet lynch mobs of the sort. Both were for print journos (former Outdoor Life writer Jim Zumbo and former RECOIL editor Jerry Tsai) who spoke up in favor of AWBs at times when such things were realistically still on the table. And Jim Zumbo got a pardon, as far as I was concerned, after a public recanting and a carbine class with Pat Rogers.
I guess I could say I stood by and held coats at the stoning of Dick Metcalf, but he brought that on his ownself, trying to sell out his fellow Illinois gun owners at a politically vulnerable time for the sake of lining his own pockets. He didn't make himself a very sympathetic figure with his sneeringly condescending retorts and whining excuse-making, either.
I reserve the right to form my opinions on these things on a case-by-case basis. I haven't really formed mine here yet, other than I think Pat Mac is as wrong as tw...well, as a very wrong thing...when it comes to the utility of waiting periods.
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.
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".
.
