Letter: On guns, who's interested in compromise?

OK , Mr. Choate. I read your column [Oct. 4, "Status quo for gun violence unacceptable"] and I have to admit my first response was an expletive followed by the word "NO," all capitalized with five exclamation points. No detailed response went through my head because I know you are not interested in true compromise and you were not brave enough to suggest any specifics.

Then I thought, "Maybe he actually is interested in compromise" and decided to write a letter offering compromises to gauge your reaction (assuming you actually are interested in true compromise).

In that spirit, I am offering some specific policy proposals, most of which have been suggested by various sources. Keep in mind that the word "compromise" means both sides get something in exchange for giving up something.

1. A nationwide background check on all handgun transactions outside the direct family - in exchange for nationwide reciprocity for concealed weapon permits and repeal of the Gun Control Act of 1968.

2. A nationwide background check on long gun transactions outside the direct family - in exchange for full repeal of the National Firearms Act of 1934 (the federally enforced ban on transferable machine guns enacted in 1986 must be included).

3. A prohibition on firearm transfers to those on the terror watch list - in exchange for full transparency and legal protection for anyone who is a U.S. citizen to have legal review of the entirety of the allegations against them in open court, with legal representation paid for by the government. A conviction for the allegation would be required for the allegation to have any standing in administrative or criminal action.

If you are not familiar with the legal and/or technical terms used , it might be a good idea to get familiar with them before demanding concessions. So ...Are you willing to compromise? Are any of the people demanding concessions really ready to compromise?

Ray Handy

Kingman